I had some extra time today and leafed through various photographic journalism/ essay type books that were available in our library. One book that stood out was Sebastio Salgado's Workers: An archaeology of the industrial age. It seems from my limited exposure to Salgado's work that he likes to use strong graphical elements (often repeated shapes) to fully utilize the medium of B&W. Very Grande images is the only way I can describe them. Now fast forward to a simpler age... W. Eugene Smith's photo-essay A Country Doctor. The essay is not as graphically sensational as Salgado's but it has a poignant, honest, quality that is in itself very moving too. The intimacy that Smith establishes with the subjects is something to behold. So my question is:

What morph of the photo-essay appeals to you the most?

a) Images that have a immediate graphic appeal (floor you initially) with limited intimacy... or

b) Images with a great deal of human intimacy, not as overtly graphic (perhaps a quiet... as Sam Abel would classify his work), but very poignant and moving (from a universal humanity theme perspective)?

It would be interesting to hear about your tastes on the matter.

John.

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), March 10, 2002

Answers

John: Neat thread! I'd vote for the human intimacy as my favourite. My reasoning is, that as an introvert, I envy photographers that can pull this off. It takes great skill to develop your subject AND make a great image. I'm also a big fan of Usher Felig (Weegee). Now there's some human studies for ya! He had the unique ability to remain neutral in many situations and got some great shots in the process. I'll give those books a look-see. Sound interesting.

-- Ben Hughes (ben@hughesbros.com), March 10, 2002.

i kinda prefer Salgado.Think Smith worked to "Life" magazine format. Salgado prefers a book.a Big book.A really big and heavy book.i like the graphics,my own preference.Also subject matter.Well Salgado is like the whole world and ALL its people whereas Eugene Smith,the village(Spain),your family Doctor(gone,mostly)midwife(outlawed!).He did great things with small intimate subjects.I guess i see a flaw in Salgado now...he's not on a relationship with the individual,but the community or cause.Sam Abell,heard his interview,gotta see his new book also more intimate.For photographers like myself,easier to duplicate the ways of HCB,DAH,etc as they involved with people as individuals.I was acquainted with a top photojournalist till he was killed.He loved books on Landscape and nature.I guess maybe i like what is so different for me,now darn it I'm not sure.....

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), March 10, 2002.

I don't know if I'd classify Weegee's style under intimacy. A lot of the Weegee shots that are memorable were the gang-land slayings that he covered as a press photographer. Witty maybe... but intimate? Hard to say you got intimate with a stiff! Some of his shots (during a heat spell) where he climbed up a fire escape to photograph families sleeping may be borderline intimate... or borderline voyeur depending on who you talk to. I think the king of intimate photo-essays was and is still W. Eugene Smith. Of course... in real life ES was a very difficult man who quit his job at Life twice because of artistic/moralist clashes with the photo-editorial department... but I guess there's a price to be paid for greatness.

In the movie Fight Club it almost cost Tyler Durden his balls.

;-)

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), March 10, 2002.

John:

I'd agree with Ben that this is a neat thread, and that poignant representations of humanity are the most pleasing.

...And here's the "BUT": BUT I do not agree with you that Salgado's images are only graphical in nature with limited intimacy. To the contrary, I think Salgado uses his strong graphic style in conjunction with key elements of the human condition that specifically makes the viewer intimate with the subject; perhaps the very aspect you are implying he lacks. Which probably explains why I was so absolutely floored by the images in his exhibit!

I would agree the Smith's images are perhaps more personally intimate than Salgado's, and certainly less graphical in nature, but I think the varying quantities of these types of qualities are the basic components that make up a personal "style" for any given artist. And thus, portrayal of that style is incumbent with effectively and regularly balancing and combining those elements in their resultant body(s) of work.

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 10, 2002.

I have a copy of Abbas' 'Allah o Akbah' and i like it a lot. It is not the grande humanity of Salgado, yet not quite as intimate as Smith's 'Minamata' work, but it is at once panoramic and close. I also happen to like Iturbide's (sorry if i got the speeling wrong) way of telling the story of her people. Poignant? i suppose what style one subcribe to has a lot to do with the personality. i cannot do what Smith did, neither can i do what Salgado did. But that's why i like them.

-- Steven Fong (steven@ima.org.sg), March 10, 2002.

Almost forgotten today, one of the greatest of all photo-essayists was Leonard McCombe, who was probably even more the master of the intimate essay than Smith. If you have access to the "Life Library of Photography" you can find his essay "The Private Life of Gwyned Filling" in the Photojournalism volume. (Smith's "Spanish Village" essay is reproduced there also.)

Also in the same book is the essay I consider probably the greatest ever -- Brian Brake's "Monsoon." Photographed with a Leica, and truly unbelievable when you consider that everything was photographed in the early '60s with Kodachrome no faster than ASA 25, and possibly even ASA 10 -- I'm not exactly sure when Kodachrome II, with a speed of 25 replaced the older ASA 10 Kodachrome.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), March 11, 2002.

The difference between Salgado and other photogs like Smith or even HCB seems to me to be the difference between the epic and the lyric.

Salgado is clearly an epic photographer, which is to say that he is interested in presenting Big Subjects in Big Books. He doesn't linger very long in one place, and he expects the whole to be vastly stronger than the sum of its parts. His photos don't come from having spent, say, a month in a refugee camp. He seems to have been there only a few days, so he doesn't necessarily produce intimate shots of intimate moments. He does, however, bring extraordinary sensitivity to difficult situations and records Humanity Going About Its (Often Difficult) Business In Our Time.

Smith and other folks tend more toward the lyric--each photograph is intimate, the result of having spent considerable time with the subject. That "poignant honest quality" you mention, John, is hard- won. Salgado doesn't look for it; instead, he seeks (in James Agee's phrase in "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men") the "cruel radiance of what is." Smith's photos are more introspective, more emotional individually.

Salgado is always accused of having too many agendas. His graphical sensationalism is often the result, too, of his overtly Christian perspective: Catholic iconography is part of his photographer's brain. Many of his shots make allusions to the Bible: Pietas, Annuciations, etc. It seems he can't resist locating his photos within the grand sweep of human history. But for a believer, it really isn't too much of a stretch to see in the modern-day plights of refugees and slaves the very Gospel itself.

I applaud this (and not on religious grounds): his photographic gestures elevate humanity and blur the distinction between the secular and the spiritual. For many reasons, his photos have "staying power" and, I think, he will go down as one of the all- time greats.

I like the other, more intimate styles too and don't think the one necessarily excludes the other. I do often wish for some greater intimacy or humor (or something) in Salgado but not enough to be put off by the lack of it.

So both of your categories appeal to me, for different reasons. Both are difficult to achieve in photography; both are worthy.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), March 11, 2002.

My preference is to see a subject treated in a way that is consistent with the essence of the subject itself. Usually, with people subjects, that means more emphasis on intimacy. I want to learn about the people - how they live, what they feel, what they think, and all of the little things that contribute to the state of mind of those people.

While it is interesting to see the photographer's style shine through, I believe the real question here is which is more important - the subject matter, or the photographer's opinion of the subject matter? That might be characterized as the contrast between a journalist (neutral, but sensitive presentation of facts) and an essayist (presentation of facts in such a way as to support a conclusion or opinion). In many cases, the photographer has decided on the latter for various reasons (book sales, career advancement, or whatever). That approach may be a disservice to both the subjects and the viewers. (The question of "Photo Journal" vs. "Photo Essay" is probably better aimed at the philosophy of photography forum.)

So, for your project, John, my suggestion would be to do enough research in advance of shooting to get a good idea of what that "essence" is, and initially pick a style of presentation accordingly. That style of presentation may evolve somewhat during the project, as you become more familiar with the real essence, as opposed to the initially perceived essence, and that's OK. Think in terms of taking the viewer on the journey with you, allowing them to see and feel what you did. Just be sure the style you choose does the subjects justice and is truthful in its presentation of their lives.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), March 11, 2002.

I think the bottom line for my endeavor is INTEGRITY. I don't want to contrive situations where individuals "pose" for the camera because the integrity of such a composition is weak (from a humanist standpoint). So I've tentatively committed to working with just a few subjects at a time (over a period of several months) to document their everyday meanderings. No more grabshots for Johnny over the next year. I will try to make the essay a mirror for the viewer's soul. Hard task... am I up to it? Well, we'll see in 1 calendar year!

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), March 11, 2002.

A great thread!

I like both Salgado and Smith and they way they approach photojournalism. I agree with what was said above about Salgado - there is intamacy, but because his pictures also have more of an emphasis on composition it isn't as quicky noticed. Because of this I like Like Salgado's stuff better. With his pictures you have to look around them and explore them as opposed to Smith's, whose pictures are direct and quick to read.

These two photographers are good examples of two differnt schools of photography - the European and American. Smith is the classical American style of photojournalism (he and other Life photographers practcally defined it) - straightforeward and easy to read. You want the reader to easily see what the picture is about. You can see this in most newspapers in the U.S. as the style (though it is starting to change). You don't want the reader to thave to think about what the picture is about for very long.

Salgado is more from the European School. His pictures are not as quick a read. They give more of an impression and they can raise more questions in the reader's mind. You could also say they are not as intimate because they don't concentrate on specific people like Smith's.

John - you might be suprised to know that Smith set up many of his pictures. In a book by Howard Chapman, who used to be the head of the Black Star Photo Agency, there is a quote where Smith says that a certin amount of arranging by the photographer must be done. (I don't have the exact quote, but I could possibly dig it up)

cheers, john

-- john locher (locherjohn@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

RE: Smith, in addition to setting up many of those shots, some of them were outright manipulations, notably the shot of the women and the corpse in the Spanish Village essay and the portrait of Albert Schweitzer.

In the Spanish village, Smith used ferracyanide to re-draw the woman's eyes (top of frame). In the original neg, she is looking at the dead man's face. In Smith's famous published image, she is looking down toward his feet.

The Schwietzer shot is a composite: one negative for the doctor looking off to the left, another negative for the silhouetted hands reaching up from the bottom of the frame.

Questions of integrity, certainly!

I have never heard of Salgado's doing anything strange, though I am always amazed that the birds (seagulls, pigeons, etc.) always seem to be descending like the heavenly spirit in precisely the right places in the photo! ;-)

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), March 11, 2002.

John, you might be thinking about the shot (Vietnam?) of the woman bathing her invalid husband--they are both in a large tub, with streams of prefect, heavenly light coming through the cracks in the roof of the hut.

Of that shot Smith said somewhere that "available light" meant any light that's available, including artifical light. He observed that a photographer would be a fool not to take advantage of every resource available to him. Like you, John, I wish I had the exact quotation.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), March 11, 2002.

Preston,

I've also heard that the picture you are talking about was set up. I think it was from his book on Minemata (spelling?) which was a town in Japan that was being horribly polluted by industry there. Apparently many of his other pictures were set up besides Spanish Village - Country Doctor, etc. I guess you have to look at the standards of his time, and at that time setting up shots was pretty common. When I found out that his stuff was set up, however, It did lose much of the power because there were some photographers in his time doing great, spontaneous stuff.

john

-- john locher (locherjohn@hotmail.com), March 12, 2002.

RE: Smith and manipulations. He did do some double-printing and probably some staging (he 'lit' that Spanish Village picture of the wake, already mentioned).

I don't think he set up "Tomoko's Bath" from scratch (but I could be wrong), but he did light that as well with some bounce flash in addition to the natural window light. And he may well have had the mother 'hold' a pose while he got into position.

A slightly different 'take' on the two (or more) schools of photojournalism/photo-essay. Someone somewhere, referring to HCB and Gene Smith, once wrote/said that in HCB's essays, "You learn a lot about Mankind, but not a great deal about the actual people in the picture." Whereas in Smith's work you learn a lot more about the individuals, at the expense of a more universal statement. There may be an "American/European" philosophical divergence at work - respect for the 'rugged individual' vs. an existentialist-based view of the individual as an atom of society (I over-generalize).

Some of Smith's Pittsburgh pictures are relatively 'non-intimate' and stand-offish, compared to, say, "Nurse-Midwife" (IMHO his best Life story). Salgado and HCB also vary quite a bit on the 'intimacy' scale, so I'm not sure they can be too easily categorized - there's some overlap.

As to 'graphics' vs. 'intimacy' - I'm not sure they're mutually exclusive. The best pictures will be a synthesis that grabs you with the 'eye-candy' but ALSO holds you with the gesture/expression/ relationship/intimacy.

Maybe that's why I like "Nurse Midwife" so much - there are very few images with the graphic power OR the intimacy of the picture of a young mother-to-be asleep with Maude Callum working by lantern-light in the background. This picture taught me everything there is to know about USING a wide-angle for expressive purpose in the first 5 seconds I saw it. IMHO one of the top 10 pictures ever taken - and with an f/5.6 lens by the light of kerosene lanterns.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 12, 2002.

I read once that Gene Smith did some propaganda work for the US Military in Sai-pan. I think it had something to do with the treatment of Japanese POWs. I haven't actually seen it though... or does it exist. There's a lot of talk that the Pentagon censored many of Smith's images because they did not "support the message" that Japanese POWs were being humanely treated. Slightly OT: Mary Ellen Marke is another photographer who's work stands out as "intimate exploration of the human microcosm". I really enjoyed her work on the mentally retarded.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), March 12, 2002.

Life Magazine also censored it's own stuff. For a long time in World War 2 they wouldn't print pictures of dead American Solders. I'm sure there was some pressure put on them by the government to do this.

john

-- john locher (locherjohn@hotmail.com), March 12, 2002.