This is an investigation into the photographers subjectivity, and how the photographers relationship between the subject and themselves becomes a collaboration to convey some sort of special significants. The photographer is tied to the facts of the subject and he/she has to define the truth, the photographer is able to add a coherent narrative by isolating a fragment of the subject and by doing so claiming some sort of rich context, that holds an extraordinary value of intelligence and a convincing narrative.
The investigation will have a general look up on the remarks of photography then specifying on photographic fields and examining them more closer. The photographic fields that we consider closest to reality we generalise with common teams like “documentary,” “factual,” “neutral” or “objective,” the investigation will allow us to look at closer at these aspects within the industry and question the involvement of the photographer and weather it really does make a difference.
Photographers are constantly searching for the appropriate approach to specific situations, this is the reason the photographers work tends to float towards there opinions, it’s their visual skill, their individual view on the world and the general attitude, personal experiences that adds to the contextual body of work. The photographers have the challenge to manipulate the truth/facts and emotions through the mechanical eye of the camera, the photographer has the awareness of dynamics within the world.
An ill-informed photographer, creates noncontextualised work, the research that the photographer builds, informs the photographers view on the subject and directs the meaning of the work they produce. So the Photography as an instrument of showing things, most of all photography is probably an instrument for displaying them. As soon as its principle was discovered and it technology invented, things where photographed in order to show them: Photographs were taken abroad in order to show them at home to present them to ones own social class.
The subject of their images somehow reflects the photographers themselves, its what they have done and where they have been. **Looking at the interests and motivations that influence photographers work towards particular subjects and ways of there working, many biographies have been written purporting to explain photographs through the periences and political engagements; all too often tribute to the photographer and a particular way of seeing out-weighs more critical analysis of the affects and import of a particular body of work.
Yet questions of motivation and the contexts and constraints within which photographers operate clearly influence picture-making. Whilst not writing biographically, questions of motivation are woven within Geoff Dyer’s reflections on the nature of photographs (Dyer 2005). Why might a particular subject be chosen, and why do some types of object, pose or place seem to be repeated so often? As a cultural critic he comments that in trying to construct a taxonomy of photographs he found endless slippages and overlaps.
This led him towards appraisal of photography via what can be known, or speculated, about the motivations of photographers. His examples are largely restricted to well-known American practitioners, and to documentary modes, yet his musings have wider pertinence as he provokes us to reflect upon the historical emergence of certain themes and subject-matter, and the evolving attitudes towards decorum or explicitness of image-content. Questioning why a photographer might have made and published a particular image is one starting point for thinking about the significance of particular photographs or types of photography.
Despite the fact the camera is based on a complex scientific and technical principles, it is a very simple matter to make it function. The camera is a structurally complex, but functionally simple, plaything. In the respect, it is the opposite of chess which is a structurally simple, and functionally complex, game: it rules are easy, but its difficult to play chess well. Anyone who holds a camera in their hands can create excellent photographs without having any idea what complex processes they are setting off when they push the button.
Photography is a recording device, a device to record light, just like a microphone recodes sound, photography makes a duplicate of what the photographer has witnessed, from their fixed perspective of the world. Despite the apparent simplicity of the first definition, the confusion of photography is the understanding of the artist – heres the viewer, theses the instrument, these the image of the world, the viewer is presented with the work and the viewer is left to make their own assumptions of the personal views of photographer.
The photographer has the ability to create images that reflect themselves, on removing the photographer we would be left with a generic style of photography. The difference between every individuals experience and technique to photograph subjects gives a greater complexity to photography. Photographers tend to change the relationship between them and their subject(s), this allows them to be able to change the multiplex of different meanings and understanding. Before you even take your first shot, your camera has already made an impression—for better or worse—on the people around you.
As you survey your surroundings, certain things—things that appeal to your interests or that seem exotic or colourful or new—are influencing you. These subjects call out for your attention and beg for your camera’s focus. And sometimes, they leave potentially fascinating cultural insight in their shadows—escaping both your camera’s lenses and eventually, your memory. Almost everyone today has a camera and takes ‘snaps’. Just as also everyone has learned to write and produce texts. Anyone who is able to write can also read. But anyone who can take snaps does not necessarily have to be able to decode photographs.
For us to see why the amateur photographer can be a photographic illiterate, the democratisation of taking of photographs has to be considered – and at the same time, a number of aspects of democratisation of the taking of photographs has to be considered and at the same time, a number of aspects of democracy in general have to be addressed. Photographer Brassai suggested that it would be immoral for a photographer to try and catch their subjects off-guard; in the belief that they would be able to capture something special, the photographer believed that their presents influenced the subjects posture and expressions.
The consequence of the photographers presents would change the way people act. Walker Evens, subway, is a body of work that he secretly hides his camera and photographs his subjects on the New York subway. With his lens protruding between two buttons of his overcoat, his subjects on the tube didn’t know they where being photographed and they hadn’t the knowledge of the photographer taking their image. Evens work then is about the exploring and having a strong believe that they where the reason that their subjects became valuable, so hiding allowed him to secretly capture the subjects interrupted expressions.
Entitled William Eggleston’s Guide, it was the first show of colour photography at Moma, a decision that incensed the critics almost as much as the supposedly banal and vulgar subject matter. When I once asked Eggleston about the reaction to the show, he said, It didn’t surprise or offend me. Didn’t impinge on me at all”. The loudest critical voice belonged to Hilton Kramer of the New York Times, who famously wrote: “Mr. Szarkowski throws all caution to the winds and speaks of Mr. Eggleston’s pictures as ‘perfect’.
Perfect? Perfectly banal, perhaps. Perfectly boring, certainly. ” A photograph is not just the result of an encounter between an event and a photographer; picture-taking is an event in itself, and one with ever more peremptory rights—to interfere with, to invade, or to ignore whatever is going on. Our very sense of situation is now articulated by the camera’s interventions. The omnipresence of cameras persuasively suggests that time consists of interesting events, events worth photographing.
This, in turn, makes it easy to feel that any event, once underway, and whatever its moral character, should be allowed to complete itself—so that something else can be brought into the world, the photograph. After the event has ended, the picture will still exist, conferring on the event a kind of immortality (and importance) it would never otherwise have enjoyed. While real people are out there killing themselves or other real people, the photographer stays behind his or her camera, creating a tiny element of another world: the image-world that bids to outlast us all.
Photographing is essentially an act of non-intervention. Part of the horror of such memorable coups of contemporary photojournalism as the pictures of a Vietnamese bonze reaching for the gasoline can, of a Bengali guerrilla in the act of bayoneting a trussed-up collaborator, comes from the awareness of how plausible it has become, in situations where the photographer has the choice between a photograph and a life, to choose the photograph. The person who intervenes cannot record; the person who is recording cannot intervene.
Dziga Vertov’s great film, Man with a Movie Camera (1929), gives the ideal image of the photographer as someone in perpetual movement, someone moving through a panorama of disparate events with such agility and speed that any intervention is out of the question. Hitchcock’s Rear Window (1954) gives the complementary image: the photographer played by James Stewart has an intensified relation to one event, through his camera, precisely because he has a broken leg and is confined to a wheelchair; being temporarily immobilized prevents him from acting on what he sees, and makes it even more important to take pictures.
Even if incompatible with intervention in a physical sense, using a camera is still a form of participation. Although the camera is an observation station, Are use of photography has led into our domestic life and photography has always had a way to expand and develop into different areas of society, with technology its____ . Photographs to some may not have a greater meaning, but when broken down photography then becomes a multiplex of different meanings and understanding.
Photographer has to use the medium as a vessel to deal with the truth and must accept that the truth may be not be what we think and however convincing the subject is represented it’s completely different from reality itself, but more a true representation of the author. We tend to think of photography as sequential—(1) you take a picture (2) through your camera (3) of a subject. You control the camera and what pictures you take, at the same time, your camera controls your image.
It tells people you are a tourist and often suggests you have money. If you are not careful, your camera can also control your experience. It is easy to consume yourself with trying to get great shots with your camera. In the meantime, however, you can forget to live in the moment and experience cultures first-hand. You choose your subject—what you want to take pictures of. And yet your subjects in many ways choose you.
People tend to take pictures of the things that interest them. Photos dictate much of what we recall from the past, so these subjects ultimately shape your memory of the travels. Photography gives you a chance to make human connections with people from other cultures and capture their human expressions through your camera. Your camera can, however, threaten, offend, and make other people feel nervous.
