December 5, 1998
WORK WITH WHAT YOU’VE GOT
by Dick Kraus
Staff Photographer
Newsday
For those of you who read the NPPA-L, which is a list
run by the National Press Photographers Association on the Internet,
you are familiar with the controversy raised every time the subject
of posing photos comes up. And, it comes up often. I don’t intend to
go into the pros and cons of the ethics of setting up photos, other
than to state my position as simply as possible.
First, a news photographer must convey his photo in as
honest a light as possible.
Second, a news photographer needs to contribute to his
paper, a photo that is relevant and at the same time, an image that
will cause the reader to take notice.
If the photographer should happen upon such a combination
that simply requires him/her to quickly compose, focus and snap the
photo, then I believe that the photographer has stepped in dog doo doo
and good luck will follow him/her for the rest of his/her life.
Now, understand one thing, here, before I go any further.
I am NOT talking about re-creating Spot News situations. Those photos
are sacrosanct and should never be tampered with. When I talk of setting-up
or posing photos for my paper, I am talking about feature or soft news
photos. And, if I don’t alter the editorial content of the photo, I
can make a decent picture that will attract the viewer to the story
and I can sleep well at night, with a clear conscience.
That being said, I will offer some illustrations and explain
what I mean by the title, “Work With What You’ve Got.”
Some of the purists among us claim that they try to effect
the attitude of “the fly on the wall” whenever they shoot for their
publications. I admire their ethics, but rarely do I admire their photos.
(Oh my God! What a damned elitist attitude. But, it is true. I am a
snob) The easiest thing in the world is for a news photographer to snap
what he/she sees without intruding on the scene. And if it looks like
a snapshot, well....so be it. But, it is pure. Dull, maybe. But, pure.
Well, some of the better journalists might take a moment
to snap a lens of a different millimeter onto their box, just to improve
the perspective and the image. But, my purist friends, you have altered
reality when you alter the perspective. Tch, tch, tch. But, you have
made a picture that may be of greater interest to the casual reader,
and the photo might be more relevant.
| Here’s an example of something that I shot which illustrates what
I am saying. I was asked to get some weather floaters one rainy
day. I drove around looking for something and finally came across
this scene of a woman raking the leaves from the curb in front of
her house, so that the water wouldn’t puddle up in her driveway.
And, by golly, she was holding an umbrella while she worked. By
the time I saw it and reacted, I was half a block away. I grabbed
my camera and threw on a 300 mm and walked back up the road until
I could fill the frame. I took several frames. I moved around to
get a cleaner image and finally, the woman spotted me and retreated
into her home before I could get her name or any more shots. OK,
so Newsday didn’t run the shot, but, I liked it. And it wasn't staged.
|
Photo
by Dick Kraus
© Newsday
|
|
Photo
by Dick Kraus
© Newsday
|
Recently, I had a business page assignment to take
a photo of a consultant who worked from his home. No props, no
computer, nothing fancy. Just his kitchen table and a phone. This
was staged for the photo and I asked him what he would be doing
if I weren't there. He said he'd by talking to a client on the
phone.
“Fine,” I said. “When I get ready to shoot, please
look up at me as though I had just walked into the room.”
Shots like these are static and I can take the luxury
of shooting from a tripod with a slow shutter, using the ambient
light for my general exposure. I use an SB-24 off the camera for
either fill, or as in this case, held way off to the side and
set for a one stop over exposure for a main or key light. By keeping
the kitchen lamp in the shot, it looked very natural. Sure, it
was a set-up. Did you think that I could have just walked into
the man's kitchen and popped him as he worked? Oh, I suppose so.
But, I couldn't have used the 1/5th of a second exposure and I
would have had to use straight, on camera flash which would have
obliterated the natural feel of the scene. So, I set it up. So,
sue me. Did I alter any editorial fact? I don’t think so.
|
|
Photo
by Dick Kraus
© Newsday
|
I used the same technique with the story of hearing
impaired children learning to use sign language. Again, straight
flash would have killed the mood. I couldn't really do too much
posing with these cute kids, but, I did work hand held, with flash
fill and available light and I asked the teacher to hold her hands
a little lower than she might normally so that I could include them
in the foreground. For all intents and purposes, this was the way
the class was run, but I did alter some of the positions in order
to make better and more relevant photographs. But, once again, nothing
was changed, editorially. |
|
Generally, when I post such observations to the
NPPA-L, I get back a pile of mail claiming that I have sold my
soul to the Devil; that my ethics are a fireable offense at their
papers. I usually write back and tell them that I admire their
high moral ground and I wish them luck. But, I urge you all to
take careful note of photos that you see in newspapers around
the country. That great looking hot weather shot of the little
boy holding his dog up to the water fountain in the park to get
a drink. Do you really believe that the photographer just happened
upon the scene with the camera up to his face, ready to shoot
that nice, clean close-up when that magic moment occurred?
|
Photo
by Dick Kraus
© Newsday
|
You do??? Then please send me your address. There’s a
bridge near me that goes by the name of Brooklyn. I own it and it is
for sale, if you are interested.
December 5, 1998
Dick Kraus
