Comments on: Camera Position 14 : Strand’s “Family” Revisited

By: Jeff Curto

Jeff Curto — Thu, 22 May 2008 21:48:50 +0000

Thanks for posting, Neal.

I think the image without the man in the doorway is more enigmatic, somehow. Even though I like the compositional element of having him there, the space created by his absence is pretty powerful.

Thanks and thanks for listening!

-Jeff

By: Neal

Neal — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:28:38 +0000

I like the one without the man in the doorway better, I think. Hmm. I also listen to your Photo History class. I’m not listening to the current ones yet, but I’m making my way. Thank you so much for everything you do.

By: Tom D.

Tom D. — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 04:56:24 +0000

Concerning the picture “The Family”. I prefer the one with the man satanding next to ‘Mom’. He adds a sense of mystery & his presence is a bit odd even.

By: jeff

jeff — Fri, 19 May 2006 02:40:24 +0000

On the Strand photographs; you raise some interesting points. First off, I think that the large camera really does help you get something different from what you would otherwise get with anything smaller. The size and “presence” of the camera suggests that the photograph is an “event” that has greater significance than a more casual photograph.

As far as the “directed” image and whether it still has significance, I think that this has to do a lot with intent. I think what’s interesting about Strand’s portraits is that he controls who we see and how we see them. The whole idea of the “directorial mode” in photography was first defined by A.D. Coleman in the mid 1970s (see: http://www.ikon-galerie.de/tress/infos/editorial/index.htm ) but was in use long before that. Moreover, it’s resurfaced in recent years in the work of photographers like Gregory Crewdson ( http://www.pbs.org/wnet/egg/210/crewdson/ ). The difference is that now, photographers seem to want us to know that something is afoot… that they have altered reality to fit their needs and desires.

With Strand, we see a photographer subtley manipulating how we see what they are showing us. Of course, we have no way of really knowing what was going on in the family or why they are posed like that; all we have is the image itself.

By: jeff

jeff — Fri, 19 May 2006 02:25:32 +0000

Fixed it (sort of) for Internet Exploder… It should look at least something like the design now.

Thanks, Dirk!

By: Dirk

Dirk — Tue, 16 May 2006 01:44:59 +0000

By the way, the file http://www.cameraposition.com/wp-content/themes/wuhan/style-ie.css is missing so the site has no style sheet/no design.

By: Dirk

Dirk — Tue, 16 May 2006 01:42:30 +0000

I have been doing a lot of family portraits recently using my 4×5 and really enjoy it. The effect of ‘presence’ of a LF camera is one of the returns in exchange for carrying the heavy gear, operating, setup etc. In the digicam snap age, people seem delighted to have a good family picture taken of them (I hand out Polaroids immediately).

I am trying to avoid the “directed portrait” as much as I can and it works very well for me. When I did commissioned work I of course directed portraits too. Now I am much more comfortable with letting things fall into place the natural way and I feel/hope it shows in the photo. What do you think is the significance of directing portraits over time? Has the notion of the photographer imposing herself diminished somewhat over time?

Lastly, given his assumed role in the family, not featuring the oldest son in the door seems completely unjustifiable to me. Maybe other family members were also not featured? The two versions raise all sorts of questions (are there any daughters not shown, for example?). Would be interesting to know more about how these photos came about.