Where's the documentary photography?

Ed Sutton said:
Why isn't Parr's (or any other documentary photographer's) interesting to 'most photographers'? I think it's because people are stuck on teh idea that the everyday isn't interesting. But that's because they haven't learned how to look. I know people dismiss Ken Rockwell, but somewhere in his website is the advice for photographers to go to drawing classes. He's spot on.

Photography is all about looking. Being aware. finding the extraordinary in the ordinary as someone has put it. Instead a lot of photographers seem to make boring photos of spectacular subjects! :LOL:
Click to expand...

Photography is all about seeing, which I suspect is what you meant since everyone looks.

There are several different factors at work here. Some will be cultural, individuals being brought up with a particular set of values and worldview. Some will be how the person is put together and the things that naturally excite or repel. Some will be a matter of training and expection: whether they have been trained to pedestal/fetishise the right things. Boredom, as well as beauty, may well be in the eye of the beerholder.

While I would not suggest for one moment that it's not possible to find the extraordinary in ordinary things, one has to be a little bit careful that we aren't simply looking at the name of the photographer first and then filtering the image through that knowledge.
 
Lunkwill Fouk said:
one has to be a little bit careful that we aren't simply looking at the name of the photographer first and then filtering the image through that knowledge.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Too much of that type of thinking shows up on internet forums masquerading as "wisdom".
 
Lunkwill Fouk said:
Photography is all about seeing, which I suspect is what you meant since everyone looks.
Click to expand...
I meant looking. We see all the time, we don't usually look. We see all sorts that we don't register, that's what happens as we walk or drive. Things register when you look.
 
Ed Sutton said:
That's only because you ignore it. If you were alien to somewhere the everyday would be remarkable.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I wrote, you just used different words.
 
Topsy said:
The problem is when documenting one is generally on the move making record shots mostly hand held along the way and rarely is taking the time to frame a good subject in a good composition in the best light so stand alone good images are more luck than judgement IMHO.
Click to expand...
Off topic, but I've been photographing my local woods since Covid began. It's a tiny bit of woodland with a minor road running along it's edge. I am very much a tripod photographer and the "ritual" of making a photograph is a core part of my photographic enjoyment.

When we were locked down, I used the hours exercise slot to also take pictures, but to keep it as exercise and not an excuse to go out and take pictures, I hand held a camera and grabbed pictures, of things that took my eye as I walked. The complete opposite of my normal practise of spending many minutes (or even hours) exploring an image before finally clicking the shutter.

It was strange to come back with 20-30 spontaneously taken images, rather than the 2-3 images I might expect from my usual, and much longer, tripod sessions.

But, the hand held shots captured something about the woods (including things like people walking their dogs, or tractors driving along the road in the mist) that my carefully managed tripod shots completely miss. As a set of photographs telling the story of what these woods are like, the handheld images are much better photographs than my technically superior and painstakingly composed and exposed, tripod shots of trees, plants and rocks.

I'm still trying to work out what this is telling me about my photography :)
 
myotis said:
I'm still trying to work out what this is telling me about my photography
Click to expand...
I think it's telling you that you enjoy both types, but both yield different results. And that's ok :)
 
myotis said:
Off topic, but I've been photographing my local woods since Covid began. It's a tiny bit of woodland with a minor road running along it's edge. I am very much a tripod photographer and the "ritual" of making a photograph is a core part of my photographic enjoyment.

When we were locked down, I used the hours exercise slot to also take pictures, but to keep it as exercise and not an excuse to go out and take pictures, I hand held a camera and grabbed pictures, of things that took my eye as I walked. The complete opposite of my normal practise of spending many minutes (or even hours) exploring an image before finally clicking the shutter.

It was strange to come back with 20-30 spontaneously taken images, rather than the 2-3 images I might expect from my usual, and much longer, tripod sessions.

But, the hand held shots captured something about the woods (including things like people walking their dogs, or tractors driving along the road in the mist) that my carefully managed tripod shots completely miss. As a set of photographs telling the story of what these woods are like, the handheld images are much better photographs than my technically superior and painstakingly composed and exposed, tripod shots of trees, plants and rocks.

I'm still trying to work out what this is telling me about my photography :)
Click to expand...
Likewise Graham, when I am taking "serious" photos I'm almost always on a tripod but on the exercise trips I didn't even take a tripod with me.
 
myotis said:
Off topic, but I've been photographing my local woods since Covid began. It's a tiny bit of woodland with a minor road running along it's edge. I am very much a tripod photographer and the "ritual" of making a photograph is a core part of my photographic enjoyment.

When we were locked down, I used the hours exercise slot to also take pictures, but to keep it as exercise and not an excuse to go out and take pictures, I hand held a camera and grabbed pictures, of things that took my eye as I walked. The complete opposite of my normal practise of spending many minutes (or even hours) exploring an image before finally clicking the shutter.

It was strange to come back with 20-30 spontaneously taken images, rather than the 2-3 images I might expect from my usual, and much longer, tripod sessions.

But, the hand held shots captured something about the woods (including things like people walking their dogs, or tractors driving along the road in the mist) that my carefully managed tripod shots completely miss. As a set of photographs telling the story of what these woods are like, the handheld images are much better photographs than my technically superior and painstakingly composed and exposed, tripod shots of trees, plants and rocks.

I'm still trying to work out what this is telling me about my photography :)
Click to expand...
That's what I've been doing as well. My bit of woodland is not a particularly beautiful area of woodland - most of it is reclaimed colliery land but it's the first time in ages that I've actually put a piece of work together rather than shot a series of individual images.

I've become really involved in the project and enjoyed doing it. Some of the images went in a zine for the most recent zine challenge on here.

Is it documentary photography? I'm not sure. The pictures tell the story of how the landscape changes over time, so some might say it is.
I'm still on with it and will look for other projects I can do in a similar vein.

It certainly has given me pleasure and something to think about.
 
Cloudforest said:
That's what I've been doing as well. My bit of woodland is not a particularly beautiful area of woodland - most of it is reclaimed colliery land but it's the first time in ages that I've actually put a piece of work together rather than shot a series of individual images.

I've become really involved in the project and enjoyed doing it. Some of the images went in a zine for the most recent zine challenge on here.

Is it documentary photography? I'm not sure. The pictures tell the story of how the landscape changes over time, so some might say it is.
I'm still on with it and will look for other projects I can do in a similar vein.

It certainly has given me pleasure and something to think about.
Click to expand...
The thing that’s missing (though implied, I think) is why you are doing it. If its just to pass the time or give you pleasure it’s probably not ‘documentary’, if you set out to ‘tell the story of how the landscape changes over time”, it probably is.
 
sphexx said:
The thing that’s missing (though implied, I think) is why you are doing it. If its just to pass the time or give you pleasure it’s probably not ‘documentary’, if you set out to ‘tell the story of how the landscape changes over time”, it probably is.
Click to expand...
I think it started out as a way to pass time but has definitely now become about the story.
 
This sort of discussion is nothing new. In the 1960s, the photo magazines had both articles and readers' letters about the difference between "documentary" and "press" photography.

I still cherish the contribution from a photographer who claimed that "I just look at the cheque. If it's got one zero after the number it was a press photo. If it's got two or more zeros after the number then it must have been documentary coverage!"

:naughty:
 
Cloudforest said:
Is it documentary photography? I'm not sure. The pictures tell the story of how the landscape changes over time, so some might say it is.
I'm still on with it and will look for other projects I can do in a similar vein.

It certainly has given me pleasure and something to think about.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how much it matters whether it is or is not documentary photography. There is value in a collection of photographs connected by a coherent theme, even if there is no obvious story.

I did think about making my woodland pictures more "documentary" like by going beyond my usual landscape photographs and also photograph how the villagers use the woodland, and look into its history (find old photographs to include in the project). The site has remnants of small scale quarrying and areas of quarry spoil. There is also a disused railway line (rails removed) and a demolished railway bridge at one end of the wood.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I do have some people pictures from my woodland project, but I'm still not sure how I am going to put it together. Most of the pictures are still woodland type landscape. A zine is part of the plan.

While it certainly seems possible to produce a documentary project retrospectively, for me, I think I would need to feel I had a clear plan and story in mind at the beginning so that I could use this to direct/drive the photography and presentation. But it's all about how much of a story can be created.

Regardless, and like you, I have really enjoyed it. The wood is less than 1km from my front door, and until Covid I'd never walked through it. I've now walked through it, on average, 2-3 days a week.
 
Last edited:
myotis said:
While it certainly seems possible to produce a documentary project retrospectively, for me, I think I would need to feel I had a clear plan and story in mind at the beginning
Click to expand...
I have found my subconscious can sometimes direct what I'm photographing. It's almost like doing a project without knowing it. Once I get conscious awareness of it, that's when I usually try to hone it and 'make it into something'. Often though, some of the earlier images will be included. It feels almost unfair to exclude the one that started it all...

If only I was any good at it :)
 
Harlequin565 said:
I have found my subconscious can sometimes direct what I'm photographing. It's almost like doing a project without knowing it. Once I get conscious awareness of it, that's when I usually try to hone it and 'make it into something'. Often though, some of the earlier images will be included. It feels almost unfair to exclude the one that started it all...

If only I was any good at it :)
Click to expand...
Yes, I can see how this might trigger a project. I think I've done this when I realise I have several photographs that fall into a theme and wonder if I could turn them into a project.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
This site: https://bookauthority.org/books/best-selling-photography-books appears to have sales figures including books of documentary photography.

I make no claims as to its accuracy but if it is correct, documentary photography is not especially popular with readers.
Click to expand...
I think Robert Franks the American's could well be one of the 'go to' documentary books, it's one of those essential books that would be on most book cases of those into documentary. No idea what it did in terms of sales.

I think most documentary books get small print runs, go out of print and then go up in value. Which probably proves your point around demand..
 
benc98 said:
No idea what it did in terms of sales.
Click to expand...
The copy I have is the 11th Edition (2017). I don't suppose that helps without knowing how many were printed, but for a book to keep getting reprinted since 1958 proves there is demand - even if, as discussed, it's not massively high.

I wonder how many copies of Tony & Chelsea Northrup's book have been sold :cool:
 
sphexx said:
I don’t think that’s especially helpful. Most are “how to“ books of some sort, maybe not surprising that people buy those along with buying euipment.
Click to expand...
I think it gives some context to the discussion Beyond that, I agree it may give a misleading picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top