Photographing People
What is special about photographing people?
Photographing people does not differ from photographing any other subject. The real difficulties have more to do with the photograph itself and the process rather than the subject. Above all, the photographer must have resolved some issues concerning his own expression and goal, which are not at all related to the actual people in front of the lens. It is important, for instance, to have chosen the type and category of people he is interested in, the manner and environment of their photography, possibly the lens he will use, and the direction the content he wants to express will take.
What can a viewer learn about the photographed person from a photo?
A photograph relates more to the person taking it rather than the one being photographed. If we see a person's photograph, we almost know nothing about the depicted person, almost not even their external features, since we often find that a photograph differs significantly from the person themselves, to the point where we do not recognize them. However, from this one photograph, we get a few details about the photographer himself, which are enriched and interest us the more photographs of people taken by him we see. In other words, the photographer captures, as with any other subject, his own self through his choices. The more photographs of the same photographer we see, the more aspects of his personality we learn about, regarding his intelligence, sensitivity, knowledge, feelings, methodicalness, obsessions. Conversely, no matter how many photographs of a depicted person we see, we will know about as much as the criminal services do from prisoners' photographs. That is, some details about their external features and nothing about their internal ones. And the better the photographer, the less we will know, because his strong personality will have intervened between the person being photographed and their image. In the end, a portrait is more the mirror of the photographer than of the person being photographed.
Does "photogenic" quality exist or not?
If by "photogenic" we mean a person's ability to be easily captured as beautiful in a photograph, then this does not concern artistic photography. Beautiful in art is what provokes tension, thus emotion, and not what conforms to the beauty standards of the time. Moreover, what comes out "easily beautiful" is not necessarily beautiful. And, most importantly, it rarely leaves traces in our memory.
What difficulties does photographing people present?
Every photographic subject presents its own practical difficulties. For example, if landscape photography risks succumbing to the folkloric treatment of nature's beauty, photographing people risks the very power of the faces and the preconceived ideas that the viewer has about them. For example, very ugly and very beautiful people do not easily allow the photographer to intervene with his self. The same goes for children or the elderly, towards whom the viewer has a predetermined approach. Something similar happens if the depicted person is very poorly or very flashy dressed. Of course, this does not mean that photographers should target facially nondescript middle-aged individuals, but to ensure they transcend the given appearance of their model.
Another potential difficulty is the fear that most people feel when in front of the lens. A fear much more intense than when being the subject of a painting. And this fear is probably related on one hand to the time that photography steals and simultaneously conceals, and on the other hand to the fact that photography acts as a mirror, which all people fear. However, the photographer should not be influenced by this fear. He can overlook it, bypass it, or even (often very interestingly) use it. In any case, the photographer has his own creative fears to face.
Is it important for the photographer to know his model?
The relationship of the photographer with the photographed and the degree of intimacy between them do not affect the outcome of the photography. There is not even one example of a good portrait photograph from which the relationship of the photographer with his model emerges. Many times, the close acquaintance between them constitutes an additional obstacle that the photographer must overcome to project his own gaze.
Can you refer to the work of some great photographers who have dealt with portrait photography?
Three great photographers who have remained in history for the significant portraits they have taken prove with the cohesion and uniqueness of their work that the respective depicted individuals are not the essential content of the photograph but merely the subject, which each photographer handles in his own way. Julia Margaret Cameron in 19th century England, August Sander in early 20th century Germany, and Diane Arbus in mid-20th century America each created a mural of faces. If we set aside the different styles which are largely related to the style of each era, as happens with language in literature, we will find that the models of each of these photographers, almost without exception, seem to be taken from the same (different for each one) family, from the same (different for each one) group of people. While it is certain and confirmed that such a thing did not actually happen in any of the three cases. However, all these faces are drawn from the psychic world of the photographer. They are products of a fantasy that found its counterparts in real life. Cameron's models are theatrical figures of a romantic world she harbored within herself. Perhaps that's why the usually dark background of her photos appears as a backdrop to her dreams. Sander's portraits of his fellow citizens in a small German town are extras in his life, individual figures in a theater of life. Perhaps that's why the background of his photos has the power and role that a stage setting has in a play. Diane Arbus's close-up shots of strange faces are images from her nightmares. Perhaps that's why there is no background, similar to the bodiless face-masks that terrify us in our sleep.