Candid versus Staged

[Irakly Shanidze]

I met quite a fiew people who think that staged photography sucks, and real art is only when you catch a candid that blows minds away. I happen to disagree because when you stage a shot, it involves a lot of creativity and takes special skills to make people act the way you want. Candid photography is a totally ifferent thing, and it requires a photographer to possess a totally different set of skills. I do not consider one better than the other. To show that I am not biased towards staged photography (which I happen to specialize in), here is an example of my candid work http://gallery.photographyreview.com...sort=1&cat=520

[almo]

I met quite a fiew people who think that staged photography sucks, and real art is only when you catch a candid that blows minds away.

Well if that were true then you would have to disregard the work of many many great artists. For instance the work of the weston clan, http://www.kimweston.com/history/edward_history.htm .

I think "art" is to subjective to be decided by such narrow terms. When someone says something like "real art", or "true art" to me my eyes start to roll. Art, so far as I am concerned, is in the eye of the beholder.

My personal definition of art is something that has and inward ability to inspire outward emotion. Candid or staged? These are just tools. They are not styles. They are the same as lighting, lenses, and camera bodies. They are ideas used in the creation of a final image.

almo

[Lava Lamp]

I met quite a fiew people who think that staged photography sucks, and real art is only when you catch a candid that blows minds away. I happen to disagree because when you stage a shot, it involves a lot of creativity and takes special skills to make people act the way you want. Candid photography is a totally ifferent thing, and it requires a photographer to possess a totally different set of skills. I do not consider one better than the other. To show that I am not biased towards staged photography (which I happen to specialize in), here is an example of my candid work http://gallery.photographyreview.com...sort=1&cat=520

Your point reminds me of a debate Van Gogh reportedly had with Gauguin. Van Gogh started as more of a realist painter, working directly from a model to document what he saw. Gauguin refused to work from anything "live," prefer to let his mind's eye capture what he saw and offer his artisitic interpretation or fantasy.

[Irakly Shanidze]

It reminds me even moe about endless fights between two political fractions on Laputa island. Remember, they could not decide from which side to break eggs, and even Gulliver could not help

Your point reminds me of a debate Van Gogh reportedly had with Gauguin. Van Gogh started as more of a realist painter, working directly from a model to document what he saw. Gauguin refused to work from anything "live," prefer to let his mind's eye capture what he saw and offer his artisitic interpretation or fantasy.

[racingpinarello]

In the case of "artistic photography" a staged scene is perfectly okay. Art is an artistic expression and it doesn't have to portray life.

The only problem I have with staged shots are editorial (newspaper, etc) where it's supposed to portray life, but that's not art.

Loren

[f.side]

when looking at candid photographs, i just can't help thinking about the skills of that particular photographer, and if it's a good picture - to admire one's ability to catch right moment or to express right emotion.. staged photographs are a bit more.. i feel they are more personal in a way that they let you into somebody's inner world, which is like travelling to a different universe. and this fascinates me.

[opus]

I saw an awesome picture of a desert. It looked vast, it looked dry, it looked hot. Several sand dunes receded into the distance. A camel walked through leaving hoofprints across the dune. One lone cactus stood in the scene. It was everything I'd ever imagined a "real" desert should be, and it was beautiful.

Then the photographer told me that about two inches to the left of the picture, the dunes ended, and the landscape was filled with ugly scrub bushes and garbage on the ground. To the right was a road, I think. The photographer talked about how many times he had the camel driver walk the camel in front of the lens, until he decided to have them walk up the dune.

So I found out the photo was essentially "staged", that he didn't capture the REAL scene, he just shot for the effect he wanted.

That didn't make the photo any less beautiful, though.

[Elysian]

Most people who hang out in studios and who seldom enter the real world outside want to be in ultimate control (I wonder why?).
We all stage scenes, but you can also go into extremes. Studio work really is about extremes; make-up, background, clothes, light, expressions, almost everything is fake. This is what I world call "over staging". It looks great, but for me and many others it's very fake. I'm not denying that it can be art, but true photography art (real emotions, beauty, innocence, history, etc) is outside the studio walls.
The are also similarities between studio staging and heavy retouch work in photoshop or gluing images together, something lots of people don't accept either.

There is a real, unpredictable and challenging world out there for us to discover.
Compare that with some studio you visit between 9-5, where you have a storage room with all the attributes you need and a list of people you can call. Even in a studio or other heavily staged environment it takes experience to come up with beautiful results, I'm not denying that, but some of them who recognize a name like Irakly Shanidze know they're looking at fake emotions, smiles or faces, clothes, environment, light, etc.

Irakly's way of photography can be compared with a blank canvas, some brushes and some paint. The result can without denial be great, but it's not what makes photography really that beautiful. What does make photography beautiful is being able to grab a direct copy of the world around us, but not the reflection of it (studio). The reflection can be beautiful, can be art, but lots of people prefer to see what's being reflected, the true world.

That's my opinion.

[Irakly Shanidze]

Like this, you mean?
http://gallery.photographyreview.com...cat=504&page=1
I do this almost every day. Try it, it's fun.

There is a real, unpredictable and challenging world out there for us to discover.
Compare that with some studio you visit between 9-5, where you have a storage room with all the attributes you need and a list of people you can call. Even in a studio or other heavily staged environment it takes experience to come up with beautiful results, I'm not denying that, but some of them who recognize a name like Irakly Shanidze know they're looking at fake emotions, smiles or faces, clothes, environment, light, etc.

Irakly's way of photography can be compared with a blank canvas, some brushes and some paint. The result can without denial be great, but it's not what makes photography really that beautiful. What does make photography beautiful is being able to grab a direct copy of the world around us, but not the reflection of it (studio). The reflection can be beautiful, can be art, but lots of people prefer to see what's being reflected, the true world.

That's my opinion.

[natatbeach]

my two opinionated cents... is taht there is no "versus" when it comes to this topic

I don't really think there is such a thing as totally candid. The very act of postioning yourself waiting for the "moment to occur" or the act of observing as an onlooker...creates a staged situation. As photographers we choose the locations and the situations that we shoot, we choose the way in which we "capture" it through our style.

So it's difficult for me to appreciate/or understand debates on whether photos are staged or candid because by choosing HOW we shoot it and HOW we present what we see...regardless if it is a spontaneous moment for the subject we document...we have staged it...controlled the situation in some small way---simply--- by choosing to take the shot.



have a good day...stepping off my tiny opinionated box.

[Irakly Shanidze]

Natalie, it's a very good point. Cartier-Bresson noted that even the most inobtrusive photographer still changes reality by his mere presence. I guess, it's inavoidable, but the better you are at it, the less disturbance to the surounding you impose. Also it is your personal choice (and, I guess, professional honesty) to classify or not to classify a photograph as candid based upon a level of participation of those on it