David Hurn, Bill Jay On Being A Photographer A Practical Guide PDF

Photography/Photojournalism $12.95 USD Revised Third Edition!
A photographer might forget his camera and live to tell the
ON BEING A PHOTOGRAPHER
tale. But no photographer who survives has ever forgotten the lessons
in this book. It is not just essential reading, its compulsory.
Daniel Meadows
DAV ID HU RN /Magnum
Head of Photojournalism, Center for Journalism Studies,
in conversation with
University of Wales
A very useful book. It discusses issues which will benefit all B I L L J AY

photographers irrespective of type, age or experience and it does so
in a clear and interesting manner. I recommend it.
Van Deren Coke
past Director of the International Museum of Photography
on abeing
and author of The Painter and the Photograph
I read On Being a Photographer in one sitting. This is an

invaluable book for its historical and aesthetic references as well as
Davids words, which go to the heart of every committed
David Hurn/Magnum and Bill Jay

photographer from the heart of a great photographer. It is inspiring.
Frank Hoy
Associate Professor, Visual Journalism, The Walter Cronkite School
of Journalism and Telecommunication, Arizona State University
We all take photographs but few of us are photographers. On photog-

rapher
Being a Photographer talks clearly and cogently about the difference
the book is rich in practical detail about how to practice as a
photographer and to create worthwhile pictures.
Barry Lane
past-Director of Photography at the Arts Council of Great Britain
and presently Secretary-General
of The Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain
LensWork Publishing
This thoughtful and provocative discussion of modern
photojournalistic practice is an invaluable addition to the literature
of photography.
Michael Carlebach
Professor, School of Communication,
ISBN 1-888803-06-1
51295
University of Miami
and author of A PRACTICAL GUIDE
The Origins of Photojournalism in America
EAN
9 781888 803068
A Practical Guide
David Hurn/Magnum
in conversation with Bill Jay
L e n s Work
P U B L IS H IN G
2001
We should like to place on record our gratitude, admiration and respect
for all those fine photographers who have given so generously of their
thinking, time and talent and especially their images to further our
quest for an understanding of the mediums basic working principles.
Many of these individuals are mentioned in the text but a complete
list would fill this book.
Our grateful thanks, also, to Jo Ann Briseo, a specialist in the World

Wide Web, who took the time and patience to process our notes into a
presentable and publishable form.
Copyright 1997, 2001 Bill Jay and David Hurn
All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means,
including information storage and retrieval systems,
without written permission in writing from the authors,
except by a reviewer, who may quote brief passages in a review.
First Printing, November 1997

Second Printing, December 1998
Third Edition, September 2001
ISBN #1-888803-06-1
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number : 97-075635
Published by LensWork Publishing, 909 Third Street, Anacortes, WA, 98221-1502 USA
Printed in the United States of America

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...................................................................... 7
ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPHER: DAVID HURN .......................... 8
SOME DEFINITIONS.............................................................. 23
SELECTING A SUBJECT .......................................................... 28
SHOOTING THE SINGLE PICTURE .......................................... 37
CREATING CONTACTS .......................................................... 47
THE PICTURE ESSAY ............................................................ 55
CAMERAS, SHOES AND OTHER ESSENTIALS .......................... 62
THE FUTURE OF PHOTOGRAPHY .......................................... 72
SOME PHOTOGRAPHIC MYTHS ............................................. 84
ABOUT THE AUTHORS ......................................................... 96

INTRODUCTION 7
INTRODUCTION
This conversation celebrates 30 years of friend- heard it, was impressed by the clarity of think-
ship and of a continuous, and continuing, ing, and adopted it then adapted it, made
dialogue about photography. rearrangements, added new images and ideas
and gave it publicly with the original lecturer
We have attempted to summarize our agree- in the audience. He picked up on the adapta-
ments on what we consider the fundamental tions, modified them and gave another lecture.
characteristics of the medium and how they The other one used his modifications which
can be employed by photographers for more suggested other images and ideas and so it
effective growth as image-makers and as has continued. Today, it would be difficult to
human beings. separate the genesis of any of the ideas, issues
or images! This is not to imply that we agree on
In that sense this is a how-to-do-it book, everything. Nevertheless, we have emphasized
although it is not about technology or processes. our agreements in the belief that they are
It is a book on how to think and act like a photog- more likely to provide practical solutions for
rapher, culled from practical experience and photographers.
from the lives of many fine photographers of the
past and present. We have concentrated on the In order to provide the basic text for this book
common denominators in these approaches to we taped 12 hours of conversation, which were
the medium in order to discover basic principles supplemented by published writings by both
which can be employed by all photographers in of us, letters back and forth, and a discussion of
whatever band of the photographic spectrum the first drafts. We offer the conversation in the
they reside. hope and conviction that photographers can
lead lives more charged with meaning through
Because our conversations have been so volu- the application of these principles.
minous over such a long period of time it is
impossible to differentiate who said what, and True, this is a book about photography but
when. Our opinions, attitudes and ways of photography is about life. We both agree with
thinking, although originating from widely the psychologist Abraham Maslow that the
different perspectives Davids from profes- purpose of life is to become actually what we
sional practice, Bills from history and criticism are potentially. We believe photography offers
merge into a seamless whole. One example an ideal vehicle towards this destination.
will illustrate how this happens.
David Hurn
Many years ago, one of us gave a lecture on Bill Jay
1996
What is Photography? [David: it was me.
Bill: yeah, yeah, I know it was]; the other one
8 ON BEING A PHOTOGRAPHER: BILL JAY & DAVID HURN
ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPHER

DAVID HURN
Thirty years ago I first showed David Hurn my step issues which are always present in the
photographs, the results of more than seven medium, but rarely discussed.
years of struggle to be a photographer. It took
him about 30 seconds to look through the lot Perhaps I should be equally direct with the
and deliver his judgment: boring. Derivative, reader. David Hurn, like any other great pho-
he said. You wont make it. tographer, has an agenda which is not at all
hidden. He believes passionately in a particular
We have been friends ever since. approach to the medium his approach. He
advocates a very specific way of thinking and
And he has continued to be my goad, my working as a photographer because he has com-
conscience, my adviser and, best of all, my mitted his professional life to a singular band
fiercest critic. Do you know how rare, how of the photographic spectrum, what he would
valuable, is such a friend, whose devastating call reportage, or eye-witness photography. It
frankness is wholly welcome because it is is therefore fair to ask: just how relevant is this
abundantly evident that such criticism taps the book to photographers who intend to reside in
wellsprings of love and not competitiveness, any one of the other multi-hued bands of the
petty jealousies or self-aggrandizement? spectrum which together make up the medium
we call photography?
Of course, I do not always agree with his
opinions or follow his advice and, even here, in I would assert its relevance and usefulness to
the spurning of his best intentions, David Hurn all photographers for many reasons, among
is supportive, as if to say: He asked for my which would include: the importance of clear
opinion; I gave it my best shot; but the decision thinking in developing an intellectual rationale
is his to make. for any method of working; the emphasis that
the subject, the thing itself, is the genesis of
I tell you these facts, and will relate the circum- all types of photography; the insistence that a
stances of our first meetings, because David clarity of vision is aided by clarity of mind; the
Hurns candor permeates these pages. Nowhere greater appreciation of other photographers
else that I know of will photographers meet work which comes from understanding their
in print a mentor who can or will speak with philosophical underpinnings (even photogra-
such directness and relevancy to the step-by- phers are viewers of photographs as much as
ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPHER: DAVID HURN 9
takers and makers); the assertion that human- dogs which accompanied him on his photo-
ism is inseparable from art, however defined graphic expeditions around Wales.
or created; the demonstration that there is no
substitute, in any endeavor, for commitment Tintern is rooted in the distant past. Its pasto-
and hard work. ral sleepy beauty clashes with the raucous
machines driven through its narrow main
Nevertheless, it is true that David Hurns street; old sheep farmers live cheek-by-jowl
commentary will be of special relevance to with artists and stockbrokers; weathered stone
photographers who believe that there is no cottages built by manual labor now house fax
greater thrill or satisfaction (or frustration) than machines and computers; it is a place called
confronting people and places, and, from that home and a tourist mecca. These clashes of old
heady, chaotic flux of life, selecting images of and new, rich and poor, ancient and modern,
direct simple beauty and truthfulness. are a microcosm of the changes taking place
in Wales and reflect the underlying themes of
This is charged language! Beauty? Truthful- David Hurns incessant imagery.
ness? I am aware of the danger in introducing
these words so early in our narrative, but, do not During his schooldays David was not consid-
fear, I expect them to become more comfortable ered a promising student: far from it. He
as they become more familiar. emerged from his education with no qualifica-
tions for anything, due to a form of what is
But right now we have a more pressing need. now known as dyslexia. No one understood
I want to introduce you to the person who will the term or the condition in those days, says
give you guidance On Being a Photographer David, and so you were just thick [stupid].
It was impossible for him to cope with the
written examinations which, then more than
E ARLY LIFE now, were essential in any subject, especially
David Hurn was born in Redhill, Surrey, the sciences, and which were requisites for the
England, on 21 July 1934. Technically, therefore, life of a veterinarian, his aspiration. But David
he is an Englishman but that is a quirk of did excel in sports, particularly track events and
circumstances. By genes, temperament and rugby. When he reached the age when every
choice he is a Welshman, from his primary British male youth was required to spend two
school education in Cardiff to his present home years in the armed forces (National Service) his
in Tintern, where he lives in a 600-year-old sporting prowess helped to secure for him
stone cottage overlooking the river Wye, backed a place at the prestigious Royal Military College,
by continuous falls of water trickling over and Sandhurst, the training ground for British
around the steep banks of his terraced garden. Army officers. It seemed that David was des-
A short walk down river are the ruins of the tined to follow in the footsteps of his father,
early 12th-century Tintern Abbey, celebrated Stanley, as a career soldier. Stanley had volun-
by William Wordsworth in his famous poem teered for the Welsh Guards just before the
of 1798. The river is flanked by meadows and outbreak of World War II in 1939 and rose
woods where David used to ramble with his rapidly through the ranks to become a major
in Special Operations. This was a remarkable After absorbing the instructions in his guide-
achievement and one which the son might book, David began to record the daily life of
have emulated. his fellow cadets. This led in turn to looking
at published photographs more carefully, and
Photography changed all that. he discovered a clash between the messages
of the images and of his military officers. In
particular, a photo-essay on Russia by Henri
FIRST PHOTOGRAPHS Cartier-Bresson, although David was ignorant
Ever anxious to gain more freedom from of the authorship at the time, published in
the rigid, cloistered and spartan life of the Picture Post (29 January, 5, 12, 19 February 1955)
Sandhurst cadet, David noticed that the only and in other magazines including Life, seemed
students allowed outside the college were to contradict the propaganda he was being
members of the camera club the darkrooms force-fed by the colleges instructors, and the
were located near the local town. Buying weight of evidence was in favor of the images.
a camera had nothing to do with a love of
photography, but it was merely a passport One image struck him most forcibly: it showed
to freedom. Unfortunately, he was required a Russian soldier in a department store buying
to take at least some token pictures for the a new hat for his wife. I remember most
college noticeboard which necessitated actually distinctly accompanying my parents on a
loading the camera with film! David bought a shopping trip to Howells [a smart department
cheap little how-to-do-it book (probably one of store in Cardiff] as soon as my father had
the Focal Guides so popular at the time) and returned from the war. I was about eleven.
taught himself the rudiments of photography. And he bought my mother a hat. My memory
He still believes in the efficacy of this solitary of that event and the emotion of the Russian
education. In my opinion there are two efficient picture were identical. I had been led to believe
ways to learn: apprentice yourself to a top that all Russians were desperately poor and
professional or teach yourself. The problem grotesquely belligerent, yet here was a Russian
with photography is that everyone does it, who seemed to be reasonably affluent, at least
believes he/she does it well (and would do it with enough spare cash to buy his wife a gift,
better if only he/she could buy a better camera and who was displaying human emotions of
or take more time off) and so this individual tenderness and caring. This image had the
produces bad pictures because he/she is doing touch of authenticity. It felt real and true.
everything wrong but passes on bad advice David began to question and challenge his
out of ignorance. The problem with receiving teachers, skilled practitioners in propaganda,
bad advice is that you do not realize that the and soon developed a distinctly suspicious
advice is bad when you are a beginner, and the attitude towards the military. What I saw in
bad habits become ingrained and very, very my viewfinder and in published images, he
difficult to remove. My advice is: learn from says, made me profoundly pacifist; hardly an
the best or teach yourself. And do not bother encouraging trait in a future military officer.
at all if you do not have an exaggerated sense
of curiosity.
The Army and David Hurn mutually agreed David Hurn was adopted by the agency. Its
that he wasnt suited to a soldiers life. members gave him much advice, taught him
the business side of photography and, gradu-
In 1955, David Hurn had exchanged a rifle for ally, passed on more and more evening and
a camera and determined that he would be a weekend assignments. Much of this work
photographer. was photographing British Royalty, already a
major money-maker for the agency. The idea
that the Royal watch by paparazzi is a recent
R EFLEX phenomenon is nonsense, says David. I was
To that end, David moved to London, secured soon spending every weekend photographing
a job (selling shirts in Harrods, the ritzy West the Royal doings, such as Prince Philip baring
End store patronized by Royalty) and met a his chest while changing shirts at a polo match,
man at an exhibition who was to be a major or Princess Margaret with her beau, Captain
photographic influence in his life: Michael Townsend, and so on. Reflex owned one of the
Peto. first long telephoto lenses in the country and in
those days the ability to shoot close-ups from
The exhibition was at the Institute of Con- a distance was unsuspected, so we got a lot
temporary Arts, then situated behind the of scoops. But I was fed up. I didnt feel like a
National Gallery, and featured a rare show of photographer. I spent most of my time sitting
photographs, by the photographer responsible on my butt waiting for the Royals to get off
in large part for Davids disaffection for the theirs. David Hurn was 22 years of age and
military, Henri Cartier-Bresson. Davids inten- anxious for experience.
sity of focus on the images attracted the atten-
tion of another visitor on that day, and Michael
Peto, already a leading British photographer, HUNGARY
introduced himself to the earnest young man. His close friend of the time was John Antrobus,
Peto was a charming Hungarian, and, in his whom he had met at Sandhurst. They quit the
still-thick European accent, began talking about Army at the same time and decided to share
pictures and asked to see Davids efforts, an apartment in London. Antrobus wanted to
after which he offered his help. be a writer. Both of them spent much of their
leisure time in the coffee bars where talk of
Peto was in the perfect position to help a young politics was rife and much of the talk of the
photographer. He was a member of a small time was about the Hungarian Revolution.
photographic agency called Reflex, which
comprised Peter Tauber, the organizer and Hungary had been Nazi Germanys ally in
marketing manager, George Vargas, a fine World War II and was occupied by Russia
news photographer, and Peto himself, who at the cessation of hostilities in 1945. It soon
specialized in warm, lyrical images which were turned communist (1949) and its puppet regime
regularly published in The Observer, a respected became increasingly oppressive, leading to a
British Sunday paper. popular uprising in 1956 which was quickly
and brutally suppressed by Russian troops.
Hurn and Antrobus (a photographer with very to published work and to retain ownership of
few published pictures and a writer with no the negatives. As a consequence, practically all
published articles) decided to go to war. It was Davids coverage of the Hungarian Revolution
a decision based more on What a lark than on has been lost; he has been able to find only three
any serious involvement, David remembers. prints from which he has made copy negatives.
The young men hitch-hiked across Europe to The loss of my work is largely the reason why
Austria, sat in cafes near the Hungarian border, my memory is so hazy of this period in my life.
which they eventually crossed in the back of I can vividly recall the situations surrounding
an ambulance, and hitch-hiked yet again to those three images, but not much else. Contact
Budapest. They were in, but unsure of what sheets would have acted as powerful memory
came next. triggers, bringing back with full clarity the
thoughts, feelings, as well as the sights, of those
As in most civil disturbances, especially in days.
large cities, the action was spasmodic and
localized. It would have been relatively easy to Back in London, flush with the success of
spend all the time being in the wrong street or the Hungarian pictures, David quit his job at
in the right street at the wrong time. Fortunately Harrods and became a full-time photographer.
they met a seasoned correspondent, Eileen Initially he continued to be nurtured by Reflex,
Travers of the London Daily Mail, who took which provided him with a small retainer
the young photographer under her wing and plus a percentage of sales. But within a year
briefed David on what was happening, where, he had severed connections with the agency
and when. She also introduced him to cor- and was freelancing for many newspapers and
respondents from Life, the premier market for magazines, covering a wide variety of events
photojournalists at the time, which put David mainly of topical newsworthy interest. He was
under contract on the spot and arranged to not alone, of course. He would keep meeting
get him out of Hungary. the same small group of enthusiastic young
photographers at many of the events, and they
His images were not only published in Life became fast friends as well as rivals. I do not
magazine but also in many other newspapers remember any animosity, says David, only
and periodicals, including Picture Post and cooperation which spurred growth in us
The Observer, through distribution by Reflex. all. This group included Don McCullin, Ian
Theres nothing like starting your photo- Berry, and Philip Jones-Griffiths, who together
graphic career at the top!, says David. He is with David Hurn would become members of
self-deprecating about his luck but the fact Magnum Photos at about the same time. Never
remains that he did make the effort to get to before in Magnums history had a single group
the situation and he did shoot pictures which from one city all become members more or less
were acceptable to the top picture journals of simultaneously.
the world.
But that was still in the future. In 1957 David
Unfortunately this was at a time when it was decided to go to Russia.
usual for periodicals to retain all copyright
RUSSIA Colin Wilson, the writer Stuart Holroyd, the

In a newspaper article on life in Russia, the film cameraman Walter Lassally, and John
reporter seemed to hedge his account by stating Antrobus who never wrote anything about
that everyday existence could only be guessed Hungary, as far as I know, but was beginning
at because no photographer had lived with a to make a name for himself as a comedy script
Russian family. That was all the incentive David writer.
Hurn needed. He made his way to Leningrad,
reasoning that a university town should have Chains of circumstance spread out from these
some English speakers among the student friends and led David into areas of photogra-
population. He presumed correctly. Loitering phy which were as unexpected as they were
around the university he asked: Do you speak invigorating.
English? until he received an affirmative and
then invited himself back to the young mans
home. From there, he telephoned The Observer: FILM AND FASHION
Im a photographer living with a Russian For example, Ken Russell was making the
family. Will you keep me here? The answer transition from ballet dancer to still photogra-
was Yes, and David Hurns photojournalism pher to filmmaker. His still work presaged the
career received another boost outrageous theatricality of his later films. He
would take these absurd ideas, remembers
On his way out of Russia, David learned that David, and shoot bizarre pictures which would
Finlands national composer, Jean Sibelius, had end up in a magazine like Illustrated. One story,
died. He covered Sibelius funeral, again for for example, was about riding a penny-farthing
The Observer. bicycle up the Albert Memorial!
Hungary, Russia, Finland all important One of Russells first films, made with a
stepping-stones in Hurns burgeoning career, wind-up Bolex, was Amelia and the Angel, which
but in many ways the 50s phenomenon of the opened the door to working with the BBC
coffee-bar as a meeting place of young, politi- program, Monitor. One of the first television
cized intellectuals was even more influential. films was about David and his friends who
David remembers one place in particular, The shared an apartment in a house run by a strange
Nucleus. It was an extraordinary meeting old lady. The result was A House in Bayswater.
place, loud with music from all over the world, Ken Russell was constantly on the lookout for
but with a strong streak of impromptu jazz, fresh ideas. And David Hurns life seemed just
raucous with passionate conversation, and reek- bizarre enough! David had a strange cross-
ing of spaghetti. It was run by Gary Winkler, section of friends, lived in a weird house, had
who doubled as both drummer and the chef, photographed war and a Royal bare chest and
whose spaghetti was not only delicious but famous people and strippers and high fashion
incredibly cheap. I hung around with a group (as we will discover later) and seemed ready-
of friends which included the film director made to be yet again a star in a Ken Russell
Ken Russell, who was then still a ballet dancer, movie. The biggest problem was who to get
the actress Shirley Ann Field, the philosopher for the female lead, whom the script described
as the most beautiful woman in the world. put up some money for the film King of Kings,
Shooting was about to begin and no decision already well into production in Spain. MGM
had been made. Claire Bloom, an already agreed if one of their contract actors, i.e., Richard
famous stage and screen actress, had agreed to Johnson, was in the movie. In turn Johnson
take a role but the director and David both felt demanded that David Hurn was used as the
the lead should be given to an unknown. Who still photographer.
and where was she?
It all worked out very well. David became fast
The question had not been answered when friends with the director, Nicholas Ray, and
David had to go to Paris to photograph the with the publicist, Tom Carlisle, who asked
collections for Jardin des Modes. On the last day David to stay in Spain for their next movie,
David walked into the hotel lobby and saw the El Cid, starring Sophia Loren and Charlton
most beautiful woman in the world who was Heston. I was happy to agree, says David.
a fashion model, also working at the collections. This was big money compared to the pittance
David walked up to her, told her she was the I had been earning for newspaper pictures.
most, asked her to star in a movie, which So he stayed in Spain for a year and developed
starts shooting tomorrow, and you must come a close working relationship with Heston,
back to London with me today! She laughed. including a trip to Italy for a costume fitting
Eventually Davids persistence convinced her the images from which were widely published
at least to call her agent, who confirmed the in fashion magazines, which paid even greater
arrangements, and Alita Naughton became the amounts of money. It seemed a good idea to
female star and Davids wife in 1964. The explore this new field. But fashion photogra-
Ken Russell movie, Watch the Birdie, was shown phers need a portfolio, preferably using top
on British television but a third of it has since talent, because David believes that a fashion
been lost. When Ken Russell made his first film photographer is only as good as his models. The
for distribution, French Dressing, he insisted that trick would be to shoot pictures of top models
Alita was given the lead. But this was the only without having to pay enormous fees. This is
movie that Alita would agree to make. David where Charlton Heston, perhaps unwittingly,
and Alita have one daughter, Sian (pronounced could help. He had offered David the use of his
Sharn); they were divorced in 1971. New York apartment.
During the early 1960s a series of seemingly Once ensconced, David called the leading
trivial events had later similarly profound model agencies, dropped the hint that he was a
repercussions in Davids life. One of them led guest of Charlton Heston and that he needed to
to his short-lived career as a fashion photogra- make test shots of their best models in Hestons
pher. apartment. No problem. With these images in
hand David called on the legendary Alexander
It began with a seemingly simple assignment Liebermann, art director of Vogue, and received
to photograph the Shakespearian actor Richard an assignment. Back in London, David called
Johnson. They became friends. Johnson was on Harpers, told the art director that he had
under contract to MGM which was asked to worked for Vogue in New York but preferred
Harpers. His fashion assignments began, SUBCULTURES

not only for Harpers but also for the most The coffee-bar scene was also the genesis for
prestigious Jardin des Modes which led to many of the ideas with which Davids persona
being in Paris for the collections and the chance as a photographer will always be associated.
meeting with Alita. Most of his commercial work was published
without credit, so it was these black-and-white
In turn, the fashion work led directly to lucrative personal projects which were raising his stature
advertising assignments, for corporations such among fellow photographers. Today, these
as Aqua Scutum, Austin Reed, Morley and the projects would collectively be called essays on
like. In addition, the movie credits acquired alternative lifestyles or subcultures. Early in this
in Spain led to many other assignments on period David teamed up with the writer Irwin
motion pictures, especially those directed Shaw, and later with the journalist/author
by the now (in)famous Ken Russell or those Nell Dunne, later to win critical fame for her
on which Tom Carlisle was the publicist novel Poor Cow. Their first idea was to explore
including all the early James Bond movies the world of models, who were just becoming
which starred Sean Connery or those in known as personalities and celebrities in their
which his friends were the stars, such as Jane own right, and this seemed a natural extension
Fonda. Davids pictures of Fonda in her reveal- of Davids forays into fashion, as well as the fact
ing space outfit for Barbarella were published that many of these models were habituees of
on the front covers of over 100 magazines the coffee-bar scene. During this project they
world-wide. heard about a model who specialized in taking
off her clothes for a living, an unusual and
All this frenetic activity of the early 1960s served rather radical notion in the early 1960s. This
to increase not only Davids fame, but also his led into another essay on other women who
fortune. Lucrative assignments in fashion and stripped professionally, A Bit of Flesh.
advertising led to a lavish lifestyle (including an
Aston Martin) and served to finance personal One of the choreographers in a strip club was
projects. He kept the two aspects of his work a homosexual and he became the focus for
widely separated commercial photography another essay on gays and transvestites. One
in color, personal projects in black and white. of Davids most famous images of this period
The latter were always the more important. If it depicts two lesbians in the act of lovemaking.
seems that there would not be enough time for From some of these individuals he was intro-
both commercial and personal work it should duced to the London drug scene, then in the
be remembered that fashion/advertising is so infancy of what would become the swinging
highly paid that a relatively few days shooting sixties. Hurn states: We were all very naive
can subsidize many days of personal freedom. about the subculture in those days; it really
David reckons that during this three- to four- was below the threshold of daily awareness.
year period he actually shot a maximum of 80 So my pictures were seen as rather radical and
days in the fashion/advertising field. shocking, even eccentric. It should also be
noted that prior to the 60s there would not
have been any market for this type of essay,
except perhaps a single image reproduced in a cooperative, Magnum Photos Inc. Magnum
newspaper. Now the color supplements, weekly had been formed in 1947 by Henri Cartier-
magazines issued by the major newspapers, Bresson, Robert Capa, David Chim Seymour
were beginning to appear, and they offered a and George Rodger as an exclusive agency,
whole new vehicle for the photographer work- owned and operated by the photographers
ing on sets of pictures on a specific theme. themselves, so they could work on serious,
humanitarian projects without loss of control to
By the mid-60s David Hurn had amassed an publishers. Membership would be by unani-
impressive body of work in news and politics, mous decision of all Magnum photographers.
fashion, advertising and, most significantly, in In a sense, Magnum was and remains an
reportage essays on a variety of sub-culture elitist club of the worlds top photojournalists.
topics. Certainly, Davids invitation to join was a major
milestone in his photographic life.
For the past ten years David Hurn had worked
incessantly for the worlds picture press How this occurred also fits the pattern of
on assignment and, increasingly, on stories of chance which David would admit has played
his own instigation. Quickly the Hurn photo such a major role in his career: My whole life
persona emerged: the quiet chronicler of the has been a succession of bizarre coincidences.
endearing, eccentric foibles of ordinary people This one took place in Trafalgar Square where
caught up in the panoply of lifes pleasures, David was shooting pictures. He was noticed
obsessions and terrors. When not specifically by another photographer, Sergio Larran, a
commissioned by one of the top picture peri- Magnum photographer based in Chile. Larran
odicals, his favorite activity was to drive his could see that this youngster was shooting
Volkswagen van, equipped for sleeping, to a pictures correctly and invited him for coffee.
strange town, scan the local newspaper for This idea fascinates me, says David; the
current events, and invite himself to participate idea that a few seconds of watching a photog-
in whatever activity was going on from rapher in action can tell you his/her status
flower shows to MG car owners ball, from pop in the medium. And its true. If you watch a
concerts to classes in ballroom dancing, from photographer of merit working an event he/she
darts contests in the local pub to open days at does not look like an amateur After Larran
stately homes. This is still a major component of had seen Davids work, he suggested that the
David Hurns photographic life and the source young photographer should link up with John
of many of his most memorable pictures. Hillelson, a London picture agent who just
happened to distribute Magnums images in
Britain.
MAGNUM PHOTOS
All this frenetic activity of the early 60s served David is quick to give Hillelson a great deal of
to establish his reputation as one of Britains credit for his future career. He was a major,
premier photographers. In 1967, he was awarded major influence in my life. He acted as my
the highest accolade for reportage work: he was advisor, editor and critic, but more crucial in
invited to join the prestigious photographic many ways was that he expanded my horizons.
Up to then I had been blinkered in my scope, felt Davids presence and guidance within
publishing primarily in the British press. Hil- me. He was my silent partner in editorial
lelson opened up the world and my images decision-making, first at Creative Camera and
began appearing in overseas journals such as then at Album, in organizing lectures for young
Paris Match (France) and Stern (Germany). In photographers, in preparing exhibitions, in
addition through Hillelson I began to meet all writing articles for journals other than my own,
the Magnum members. So I already was linked in hustling to gain acceptance for photography
to Magnum long before I was asked to join, in within the tradition-bound arts establishment.
that I knew the photographers personally and
was already being represented by their agent. My visits to his Porchester Court apartment
David Hurn became an associate member of were growing in frequency eventually I
Magnum Photos in 1965 and a full member moved in, editing Album from his own office.
in 1967. These were heady times. David Hurns home
was the charged space where photographers
from all over the world gathered to discuss
PERSONAL CONTACT images and ideas over umpteen cups of tea.
It is at this point in his career that I first met Frequent visitors were Patrick Ward, Leonard
David Hurn. In early 1967, as the young editor Freed, Don McCullin, Erich Hartmann, Charles
of Creative Camera, I was anxious to meet such a Harbutt, Elliott Erwitt, Ian Berry, and then Josef
renowned British photographer, and I asked if Koudelka who also found a home with David
I could interview him. I had no idea, of course, on his escape from Czechoslovakia after the
that a seemingly casual request would change Russian invasion. Many are the times when I
my life so markedly. As I listened to him answer had to step over his sleeping body to reach my
my questions, it is no exaggeration to say that desk. I remember those days with gratitude
a sort of epiphany occurred. In his clarity of and fondness, and could write endlessly about
thinking, his direct approach to the medium, these encounters and conversations. But the
and his forceful utterances, I recognized a danger of digression must be avoided, as this
perfect template for my own, much hazier and introduction is about David himself.
unformed, opinions and attitudes. It was after
the interview was concluded that I asked if By 1972 major changes, for both of us, were
I could come back and show him my own in the air. Album had folded and I decided to
photographs with the result that opened move to the University of New Mexico to study
this introduction. with Beaumont Newhall and Van Deren Coke,
both of whom I knew well and respected from
Yes, his quick dismissal of my images was their previous visits to England. Davids life was
disturbing and hurtful, but not as much as also undergoing a catharsis. He was becoming
you might expect. I think that deep down, I increasingly dissatisfied with his commercial
knew what he said was true: I would not make career and knew that he needed to jolt his
a successful photojournalist. Subsequently we personal work back on track, and find a fresh
talked about what my role in the medium could way to make meaningful contributions to
and should be, and whatever I did thereafter I Britains growing awareness of the medium.
WALES Meanwhile he was also active in the burgeoning

His decision was to move back to Wales for one support for photography by The Arts Council
year, live simply and cheaply out of his camper of Great Britain, serving on its photography
and shoot pictures of Wales and the Welsh for a committee and arts panels for many years. He
book project. He intended to return to London; says: The Arts Council, through the leadership
he merely sublet his apartment, keeping one of its director, Barry Lane, raised the profile
room for occasional visits. of fine photography in Britain and gave much
encouragement to young photographers, but
Again, chance was to veer him in a different we also made mistakes. In my opinion it
direction. During his Welsh rambles he met an was a mistake to finance photo-galleries it
administrator of a college and the conversation looked as if photography could not compete
turned towards the ideal course for a young in the existing gallery world and that it was
photographer. David was intrigued. He spent therefore necessary to create our own ghetto
more and more time planning this fictional galleries.
(or so he supposed) ideal program, even to
the extent of designing the perfect darkrooms. David Hurn was now helping to shape a
The aspect of this mental exercise which most national attitude towards photography through
captivated him, however, was: What is it that those establishment bodies, which had spurned
all the top professionals have in common? And the medium only a few years earlier.
can this be taught? I saw a pattern in how all
the most respected photographers approached His photographs were also achieving recogni-
their work, says David, and I believed that tion by institutions and philanthropic industries
these basic principles could be passed on to and he became the recipient of many awards,
aspiring youngsters. Although this seemed including the Welsh Arts Council (1971); Kodak
logical and self-evident to me, I later learned Bursary (1975); the UK/US Bicentennial Fel-
that the whole course was unique. Once Gwent lowship (1979-80), which David spent with
College saw Davids proposal he was asked me in Arizona; Imperial War Museum Arts
to implement it. He agreed for two years at Award (1987-88); and many others, including
the most. He was instigator and director of the his first monograph: David Hurn: Photographs
program for 15 years. 1956-1976, published by The Arts Council of
Great Britain, with an introduction by Sir Tom
The School of Documentary Photography, Hopkinson, the legendary editor of Picture Post
located within Gwent College of Higher Educa- during its glory years in the 40s.
tion at Newport in South Wales, was a major
success, becoming the most respected course From 1972 to 1990, David Hurn was one of the
of its kind in the world. David Hurns talent for sturdiest pillars of the British photographic edi-
organization, clarity of thinking and seeing, fice. He was a full-time college administrator/
and professionalism were now channeled to his teacher, an advisor to various councils and
students, many of whom have become major committees, a frequent guest lecturer and
figures in the medium. conductor of workshops, and he still managed
some way, some how, to snatch time to continue have had a mass of really good
his own photography, and prepare exhibitions students and I am sure I will
be constantly reminded of them.
of personal work. But it was becoming increas-
Teaching was fun, worthwhile and
ingly difficult to juggle all these balls and sooner even sometimes thought provok-
or later some of them had to be dropped. ing, however, it has not really
changed my views on anything.
Photography is still, to me, mum
BACK TO PHOTOGRAPHY snapping the baby and showing
the result to grandma
In 1990 David made a decision. Heres a quota-
tion from a letter he sent to me at the time
(22 March 1990): At the time of writing (January 1995) it has
been five years since David Hurn severed all
Dear Bill: links with a regular commitment. He may be
poorer financially but he is richer in time. Time
Well my world is about to make
to do what he wants to do, and what he does
the big change. The path to mal-
nutrition. I have decided to give best: take pictures. When I began teaching it
up full-time teaching. seemed as though I would have plenty of time
for my own work, but as the course became
The decision is more from the more and more successful so the administrative
heart than the head. When I add chores became increasingly time-consuming.
up possible income and match it
Also, the ethos of education was changing. At
against what I get now, the equa-
tion never balances. The problem first I had a free hand to apply what worked;
is that I have no desire to be shot later I spent most of my time arguing with
at, no desire to sit at the end of administrators who knew nothing about the
a car phone hoping to do three course or the field. Then came the moment
running jobs a day, no desire to when I suddenly realized that I had been a
photograph the prime ministers
teacher as long as I had been a photographer,
cats, in fact no desire to do what
I dont want to do. so thereafter if someone asked what I did I
would have to reply Im a teacher not Im a
However, one day I was speculat- photographer. That frightened me. I knew I
ing on how I would like to look had stayed too long!
back on life and I decided I wanted
to feel that I was a photographer
This fact was emphasized when David called
rather than a teacher. As simple
as that. on the picture editors with new story ideas:
Perhaps I thought the photo-world would
It might be that many others will shout Whoopee! David Hurn is back! but the
always remember me as a teacher reality was that I was talking to 25-year-olds
and that wont worry me, I am who had never heard of Magnum, let alone
sure that I will become more and
David Hurn. And when I proposed major
more proud of the achievements
of the course as time passes. We essays they laughed in my face and told me
they never commissioned stories of more than
two or three images, maximum. Times had sought out Mark Klett, a landscape photog-
changed and I was a dinosaur. Actually this rapher whom he much admires, flew 6,000
cold reception was good for me. I had to rethink miles (from Wales to Arizona) and followed
my whole approach and I decided to concen- him around for days, watching his every move,
trate on major essays of my own choosing, determined to master a new method of work-
without consideration of the end result. His ing by learning from a superlative craftsman
saleable work would come out the side of these and artist.
major projects. For example while shooting the
two-year project on sculpture he was aware This obsession to get it right, to do it as well
that people were eating their lunches in a as it can be done or not at all, is typical of
variety of places and this led to a Lunchbreak David Hurns approach to everything, life as
set of pictures for a color supplement which well as art.
ran across 13 pages plus the front cover and,
says David, helped pay the bills for my own
work. THE PERSON
This brief narrative account of David Hurns
In recent years he has completed, continued career serves the purpose, hopefully, of estab-
and begun a multitude of personal projects lishing his photographic credentials as a guide
including a rephotographic survey of Eugene to photographers. As David would say to
Atgts images of sculpture at Versailles; a series others: Learn from the best; the second-raters
which he calls Documentary Pictures of Romantic have nothing to offer. If this book was merely
Places and Romantic Pictures of Documentary about the craft of photography, then I would
Places; a large project which attempts to answer stop this introduction right here. But it is not.
the question What is sculpture?; and people For David, photography is inextricably linked
posing for other peoples cameras. What is with life; the photographer is not invisibly
intriguing about these projects is that they behind the camera but projecting a life-attitude
examine some of the most fundamental prob- through the lens to create an interference pat-
lems of the medium itself rather than satisfy a tern with the image. Who he is, what he believes,
glib need to know what something or someone not only becomes important to know intellectu-
looks like. ally, but also becomes revealed emotionally
and visibly through a body of work.
But the point I want to make here is that David
Hurn has never curbed his curiosity not He has written: It is the purpose of life that
only about the human condition but also about each of us strives to become actually what he
photography itself. He is still prodding, poking or she is potentially. Each photographer, then,
the medium in his desire to tease it into giving should be obsessed with stretching towards
up its reluctant secrets. This is never-ending. that goal through an understanding of others
For example, a new series of images of the and the world we inhabit. When that happens,
Welsh landscape demanded, thought David, the results, like photographs, are really the
a contemplative large-format approach. So he expressions of the life of the maker.
So it is relevant to ask: Who is David Hurn, has never been distracted for one moment from
the person who permeates the title photogra- potential images. Suddenly you find yourself
pher? talking to air; David has seen a picture and left
you in mid-sentence.
Acknowledging that mere words are laugh-
ingly inadequate to convey the complexities Theres a single mindedness about David that
of a personality, I will nevertheless attempt can be intimidating to those who have no
a verbal snapshot of the person who is your obsession of their own.
guide
In our fictional first encounter, you ask David
Let us say you are at an event which David if he would join you for a pub lunch after the
Hurn is photographing: the chances are that event, and he is happy to agree. Then you will
you would not notice him. He tends, chame- notice several small but telling details: he is
leon-like, to blend in with whatever type of punctual, he doesnt drink alcohol (and never
person is present, whether high-society wed- has), he doesnt smoke (and never has), and he
ding guest or working-class picnicker. He is has little regard for whats on the menu. David
not posing, pushing people around, creating a will eat almost anything and enjoy whatever is
pocket of activity; he is discreet, one of everyone, available; although he is partial to fine cuisine,
a silent insider. But someone nudges you and some of our best mealtimes together have been
says: thats David Hurn, the photographer. greasy fish and chips eaten off the packaging.
So you introduce yourself, and find that he
is immediately effusive, perhaps overly so, After the meal you finally start probing the
with the ready smile and enthusiasm of the deeper aspects of his personality (probably over
congenitally shy. That might surprise you, endless, endless cups of tea) and quickly
but it is true. For all his world and worldly find the affable, humorous, empathic outer
experiences David Hurn is a shy person, like surface hides an inner core of adamantine
many photographers of people. This seeming conviction. Ask his opinion on anything
weakness he has turned into a strength. He politics, religion, sex and you will receive
likes people and through the camera can both a brutally direct response. Obviously he has
connect with them and remain hidden behind thought, carefully and deeply, about these issues
the instrument. and is now sure of his foundations. You now
feel a clash between his personable warmth
Encouraged by his initial warmth you find and chilly Puritanism. This is intimidating for
him an easy person to talk to, because he is those who are not inner directed, who have
genuinely interested in what you have to say, not continually assessed their behavior and
until you wonder if you are distracting him, attitudes and reconciled their individuality
preventing him from shooting pictures. Unlike with the possible disapproval of others. David
most photographers, however, David enjoys will assert his principles, as forcefully and
company while photographing, as if the con- as clearly as possible, in the face of disagree-
versation is an additional shield to his activities ment. For the majority, people of principle are
because, although you do not know it, he frightening.
David Hurns principles are rooted in an old- and an enchantment with ordinary, daily
fashioned or at least unfashionable belief lives.
in the goodness and oneness of the human
race, which in this era of casual callousness And it is no surprise that his admonitions to
places him to the far left of the political center, photographers carry the same message: think
but right in the middle of the working people clearly, act sensibly, commit yourself to caring
among whom he most enjoys to interact and and work hard in order to discover joy. Then
photograph. give the images back to the world from which
they were taken. He has written:
David Hurn can be rigid, uncompromising,
infuriatingly opinionated, intense, single- In previous ages the word art was used to
mindedly obsessive and, at the same time, cover all forms of human skill. The Greeks
unfailingly generous, full of warmth and believed that these skills were given by the
laughter, and a lover of life in all its facets. gods to man for the purpose of improving the
condition of life. In a real sense, photography
It is no surprise that his photographs reflect his has fulfilled the Greek ideal of art; it should
life attitude: persistence, hard work, stripped- not only improve the photographer, but also
to-the-bone simplicity with a smile at the edges improve the world.
SOME DEFINITIONS 23
SOME DEFINITIONS
The Naming of Cats is a difficult matter,
It isnt just one of your holiday games;
At first you may think Im as mad as a hatter
When I tell you a cat must have three different names.
T. S. Eliot,
The Naming of Cats
Bill Jay: My first editor, an abrasive ex-newspaperman called Alex Surgenor,

had an obsessive mantra which he would hurl at young journalists whenever a new
story idea was proposed: If you would discourse with me, first define your terms!
He was right. So, let us begin this discourse with an attempt to name the cat
What do you call yourself?
David Hurn: Im a photographer, obviously. My chosen tool for understanding

life, and communicating the results of this search to others, is the camera. But I
know what you mean. The term photographer covers such a broad spectrum
of activities that it is not specific, and therefore useful, enough to act as verbal
shorthand. Just what type of photographer are we talking about?
My guess is that most viewers of your images will assume they are in the tradition
of photojournalism, in that they are taken in real-life situations with a straight, or
unmanipulated, approach.
The word photojournalism also implies that the subject of the picture is a
topical news event, accompanied by words, published in the mass media, usually
with the intent to right a social wrong. In this sense, I am not a photojournalist. I no
longer cover current events, I work independently of a journalist, I am not inter-
ested in bland records of social ills, and my prints are often intended for exhibition,
not publication.
But it is true that much of your work is reproduced in periodicals where it reaches a wide
audience. In that context, therefore, it would seem to perform as the visual equivalent of
words on a page and could be defined as photography-journalism.
Even if that were true, I would still have objections to being called a photojournal-
ist, because the term has gained unfortunate connotations, like the word
politician! I mean, what professions should be the most honorable and attract the most
idealistic, altruistic people? Politics and journalism. The politician should eschew personal
aggrandizement in order to better serve the country; the journalist, in order to stand for
integrity, rooting out hypocrisy, corruption and lies. What could be more noble, honorable
professions? In practice, of course, both professions are reviled. And the journalist is
invariably linked to tabloid sensationalism, distorted information, news as the lowest
common denominator of entertainment. No, I dont want to be associated with such
a tacky job.
More specifically, the photojournalist is too often associated with a foot-in-the-door, camera-in-
the-face, aggression, without much knowledge or concern about the subject or how the image will
be used or any regard for issues of ethics or aesthetics. Is that fair?
Not always. The best of this type of work, say by Don McCullin, Abbas, Ian Berry, or James
Nachtwey, transcends that characterization. Those individuals, and many more like them,
have made it a point to understand their subjects, about which they care deeply and
they also care deeply about the pictures. They are justly famous because not only are the
images of publishable subject matter but also because their pictures rise above obvious
recording. Single pictures can be taken out of the original context and displayed, perhaps
in a gallery, as images of lasting emotional and aesthetic power. But because there
are exceptions, these do not invalidate my point that the term photojournalist has
unsavory connotations.
Another problem with the word seems to be that when these fine photographers are represented
in galleries it is often with the images which are not their best or best known work, so confirming
that the field is less artistic.
Thats true, too. Once any photographer reaches some notoriety or fame, the art establish-
ment shuffles through all the garbage looking for saleable vintage junk. And every photog-
rapher produces rubbish. The art world doesnt do that to painters or sculptures, at least
to the same extent.
This point reminds me of a story about Henri Cartier-Bresson, who was telling a group of young
photographers about the difference between photojournalism and fine-art photography. He said
that the artist Harry Callahan and himself worked in identical ways enthusiasm for subject,
careful planning, working the situation through many, many images, etc. but the big difference
was that he could publish his seconds, the less than the best, whereas Callahan could only use
one picture from the set, on a gallery wall.
I agree. The working method of the photographer, whether the end result is publication or
a gallery, is identical. But I would add a note of caution to the use of the word seconds.
This could imply to photographers that seconds are bad pictures, which is not so. The
seconds are the links between the great pictures and are essential in any published set of
photographs. Look at the journalistic assignments of Walker Evans for Fortune magazine
or the justly renowned essays by W. Eugene Smith for Life. Always the fine images are
linked together with lesser images and are necessary for pace and rhythm in the layout.
SOME DEFINITIONS 25
In these contexts the truly beautiful pictures are not reduced by their juxtaposition with
seconds. The problem occurs when galleries market the seconds, apart from the original
contexts, as the very best single images by a photographer.
By the way, if the term photojournalist was used as Cartier-Bresson described it, the
keeping of a photographic journal, then it would be an appropriate name and I would
be happy to adopt it. But it is not.
If we are having trouble with the term photojournalist, I can foresee just as many problems with
the term documentary photographer.
Right. This is particularly true today when a document implies unbiased, non-judgmental,
objective, factual evidence. And, of course, no photograph at least no photograph that I
am likely to make even comes close to this notion.
I wonder how this arose that documentary photographs are associated with objectivity? The
term has a strange history in the medium, as you know. In the 19th century the documentary
photographer did not exist; the implication, though, would be that the photographer produced
copies of manuscripts, plans and such-like flat documents. It was not until the 1930s that John
Grierson introduced the term documentary film but his definition was unabashedly linked
to a subjective, opinionated point of view: propaganda. That was reasonable, as the root of
documentary is the verb docere, to teach. Odd that once the word was transferred to still
photography it meant the opposite: objective evidence.
The fact remains that if I were called, or called myself, a documentary photographer
it would imply, to most people in this day and age, that I was taking pictures of some
objective truth which I am not. And even if I knew what I meant, in any conversation
I would have that bizarre feeling that the other person is presuming or talking about
something entirely different. So its not very helpful.
I understand that you are not a documentary photographer in the sense that most people
would understand the term, so what is the relationship between your observations of reality
and that problematic word truth?
It is tenuous at best. If truth implies factual accuracy and objectivity, then the connection
is completely severed. The only factually correct aspect of photography is that it shows
what something looked like under a very particular set of circumstances. But that is
not the same as the underlying truth of the event or situation. As to objectivity, it does
not exist. In my own photography I have two fundamental controls: where I stand and
when I press the button. Both are very subjective choices so the end result, the picture,
is bound to be equally subjective.
My concession to objectivity is more of an attempt towards honesty in relation to the

subject matter. This is only an attempt.
What do you mean by honesty?

I cannot define it, but that does not concern me very much because its opposite is clear.
In other words when I am taking a picture I know in my heart if I am being dishonest
to the subject, if I am not being true to my instincts or feelings. This is different from
factually correct. I may, for example, later find that my initial reaction was misguided.
That happens. But I can still be honest and sincere at the time. You just have to do
the best you can. I never claim my photographs reveal some defi nitive truth. I claim
that this is what I saw and felt about the subject at the time the pictures were made.
Thats all that any photographer can claim. I do not know any great photographer who
would presume otherwise.
Even though the term documentary photography poses problems you used it for your course,
The School of Documentary Photography. Why?
In the absence of an ideal term, documentary photography came the closest to describing
a type of photography which would be broadly recognized in Britain. It served not so
much to describe what we did but, more importantly, to define what we did not do! In
other words, documentary photography was not fashion, not advertising, not cutting up
images and producing manipulated art, and so on. Anything left was loosely subsumed
under the category documentary. And that included a broad range of photographic
activities, from hard paparazzi-style news work to architectural, landscape, or botanical
photography to images intended for a gallery wall, if they were made in an unset-up,
straight style. In other words, the title of the school served to cut down the number
of applications. During interviews we could further defi ne our needs. This was not a
contentious issue for the students. They understood what we were intending. The problem
occurred in our academic environment, by anti-everything bureaucrats who, with typical
verbal diarrhea, incessantly hammered on us for an exact definition of documentary.
It was so irritating because it was such a waste of time. I would respond: our students
understand what we mean, so why is it so difficult for you to understand?
For various reasons you are not a photojournalist and you are hesitant to call yourself a
documentary photographer because your images are subjective and personal. Fair enough. Is
there a term which you prefer above others?
Yes. I think of myself as a reportage photographer. I like the word. It implies a personal
account of an observed event with connotations of subjectivity but honesty. It is eye-witness
photography.
Or, I witness with the emphasis on the first person singular!
Words, words, words. Are we finished with definitions yet?
Not quite. I think it is important to clear up one further point before we talk about the practice
of photography, and that is the idea of narrative which is implied by the terms picture-story or
photo-essay. And I know you would agree that images are not linear explanations or narratives
in the same sense that words are stories.
SOME DEFINITIONS 27
Thats true, but I cannot think of a good term which defines a series or sequence of pictures
where the whole, the group, is stronger, visually and emotionally, than any of the individual
images. I agree that a set of pictures is never narrative in the usual meaning of the word.
For this reason, I think the word essay is slightly better than story.
When I talk about the picture or photographic essay I mean a group of images in which
each picture is supporting and strengthening all the others; not that the sequencing of the
pictures can be read like a string of words.
Take Robert Franks The Americans, for example. It is a superb photographic essay but
it is not narrative in the visual sense. The sequencing of the pictures might have a visual
logic but that is very different from a narrative/idea logic
Might have a visual logic? You sound unconvinced! Yet thousands of words have been written by
critics on the logic of the pictures sequencing.
I know. I have just read a paragraph by one of the best, and certainly one of the most
readable critics, A. D. Coleman, praising Franks process of redacting his imagery into
a spare, taut, book-length sequence. I must say, I find such assertions fascinating.
But just how much was this sequencing and picture-selection due to Franks choices
and how much due to Robert Delpire, the books editor/publisher? And if they were
mainly Delpires does that make any difference? I will certainly try to discuss this with
Allan next time we meet.
Similarly I once read a very clever and convincing rationale for the sequencing of the
pictures in Bill Brandts book The English at Home; but just how much of this analysis is an
after-the-fact reading applied by a smart critic, compared to Brandts original intent?
It reminds me that I was around Josef Koudelka on a daily basis when he was preparing
the layouts for his superb book, Gypsies. Over the period of a few weeks he rearranged
roughly the same pictures into a dozen or more different sequences. I would be very, very
surprised if the final one was any better than most of the others. Also, Im sure Delpire,
who prepared and designed Gypsies, had a great influence. Koudelka is a very smart man;
he would listen to the advice of someone he respects.
Anyway, my point is that care must be taken in the arrangement of the individual units
in any grouping of photographs, but I suspect that beyond a certain point it does not
matter as much as critics would lead us to believe. And whatever the sequencing, the
result is not story-telling.
In spite of your suspicion of definitions, I do think this has been an important preface. As
Herbert Spenser said: How often misused words generate misleading thoughts. Now
that we are all thinking clearly, lets move on.
SELECTING A SUBJECT
They said, You have a blue guitar,
You do not play things as they are.
The man replied, Things as they are
Are changed upon the blue guitar.
Wallace Stevens,
The Man with The Blue Guitar
Bill Jay: When we were discussing some definitions you remarked that
photographys core characteristic was to show what something looked like. I
think this is an important point because many photographers seem fascinated
with the medium yet have no idea what to photograph.
David Hurn: Thats true. The fundamental issue is one of emphasis:

you are not a photographer because you are interested in photography.
Explain what you mean.
Many people are interested in photography in some nebulous way; they

might be interested in the seemingly glamorous lives of top fashion or
war photographers; or in the acquisition and admiration of beautiful,
functional machines, the cameras; or in the arcane ritual of the darkroom
processes; or in the persona which they could adopt if only they
took pictures like whoever. But these interests, no matter how
personally enjoyable they might be, never lead to the person becoming
a photographer. The reason is that photography is only a tool, a vehicle,
for expressing or transmitting a passion in something else. It is not
the end result. An analogy would be to buy a car for its status appeal,
for the idea that it will improve your sex-life, for the smell of the new
upholstery, for the fascination with its beautiful engineering, and so on.
But it is useless unless it actually takes you somewhere.
SELECTING A SUBJECT 29
The destination of photography is to reveal what something or somebody looked like,

under a particular set of conditions, at a particular moment in time, and to transmit the
result to others.
Right. However, a word of caution should be inserted here. Although what you just said
is true, it does not imply merely bland records of anything. Some pictures are obviously
more interesting, more beautiful, more inspiring than others, even of the same subject
matter. More than that, they are indelibly stamped with the unique style, for want of a
better word, of the individuals who made them. So what transforms these simple records
into pictures of lasting merit?
How would you answer?
It comes down to the choice of subject. The photographer must have intense curiosity,
not just a passing visual interest, in the theme of the pictures. This curiosity leads to
intense examination, reading, talking, research and many, many failed attempts over
a long period of time.
Im intrigued by this idea: it seems to me self-evident that in order to photograph with any degree
of continuous passion, you must have a fascination for the subject, otherwise you cannot sustain
an interest in the act of creation for a long enough period of time in which to make any insightful
or original statement about it. And I had to learn this lesson from you. After you had told me in
1967 that my photographs were boring, as I related in the opening pages, I could stop
the struggle to be a photographer-like-other-photographers. It was such a relief. I began
shooting anew, with a simple concentration on the subjects which most interested me,
with no thought of success, prestige, or reputation, but with a joyous liberation which
continues to this day.
Im pleased that you raised the issue of your own photographs. I was a bit concerned that
we had left the reader with the impression of you being a failed photographer which
was not an encouraging idea for a joint-author of a book on the practical issues of the
medium! I was disparaging about your images 30 years ago because they were derivative
of the work of others whom you admired. They were not your own. But since then you
have been intensely involved with your personal subject matter particularly portraits of
photographers and produced a huge body of work which not only contains fine single
images but also adds up to a major historical record.
Let us make the point clear: when the subject takes precedence, you not only start the journey
towards a personal style but also you discover the sheer joy of visually responding to the world.
It solves a lot of doubts, clears away all confusion.
The reason for a young photographers confusion is that most teachers, classes, workshops,
books, whatever, imply that how the picture is made, what techniques were employed,
why it looks different and artistic, is more important than the subject matter. Yet the
photographer is, primarily, a subject-selector. Much as it might offend the artistically
inclined, the history of photography is primarily the history of the subject matter.
So a photographers fi rst decision is what to photograph. Your curiosity, fascination
and enthusiasm for this subject can be communicated to others through the pictures
you take of it.
This reminds me Ralph Steiner, the late, great photographer, would occasionally write me a
funny, provocative letter after he had read one of my published articles. He would end with the
words: But you still have not told me in which direction to point the camera and this is what
matters. And he is right. So lets get down to brass tacks, as the British would say, and give
specific advice on the choice of subject matter.
Garden gnomes!
Only kidding. My guess is that giving specific advice on what to photograph would not
be appreciated even if it was possible and its not, because how could I know what
excites the curiosity of others?
True, but we can talk about the basic principles of subject selection.
The first thing to do is carry a notebook and during quiet times or as the thought occurs
to you, compile a list of anything that really interests you. In other words, write a list of
subjects which fascinate you without regard to photography. What could inflame your
passion and curiosity over a long period of time? At that stage, make the list without any
regard for photography. Be as specific as possible. After you have exhausted the list, you
begin to cut it down by asking yourself these questions:
Is it visual? You can safely eliminate such fascinating (to you) topics as existential
philosophy or the Old Testament or the existence of intelligent life on other planets.
Is it practical? You can cut out topics which are difficult or impossible to photograph
at your convenience on a regular basis. For example, if I were a photographer of limited
means living in, say, Denver, I would have to eliminate the topic of Japanese pagodas, at
least as far as photography is concerned. Or I would cut out an interest in famous film stars
the subject must be not only practical but continually accessible.
Is it a subject about which I know enough? Eliminate those subjects about which
you are ignorant, at least until you have conducted a good deal of research into the
topic. For example, you are not contributing anything to the issue of urban poverty
by wandering back streets and snatching pictures of derelicts in doorways. Thats
exploitation, not exploration.
Is it interesting to others? This is a tricky one, but it is worth asking yourself: if you have
several remaining topics all of which are equally fascinating, which one is interesting to
others? This is tricky only in that it ignores the issue of your intended audience, which
might be a small, specialized one, and the issue of pandering to public appeal.
I would like to interject a note on this last point. I know, as a professional lecturer, that it is difficult
to transmit information (in say, my own passion for topographical photographers of the wet-plate
period) to a bored, disinterested audience. I must engage and hold the audiences attention
before the content can flow. On the other hand, I am not a professional entertainer. So there
is a very fine line between pandering to popular appeal and a respectful consideration of
viewers/listeners attention-span or interest in the content. It is what I call a respect for the bum-
factor just how much is the audience aware of the seats on which it is sitting? You are talking
about a similar fine line between your interest and the interest of the viewer.
Yes, if all of the final selections interest you equally, it does not seem like a compromise
to select the topic which others are more interested in viewing. The state of being human
dictates that some things are more interesting to look at than others.
But we could discuss this gray area ad nauseum and thereby forget the essential point:
the subject matter you select must: a) fire your enthusiasm and curiosity for at least the
length of time it will take to produce a meaningful body of work; b) lend itself to images,
as opposed to words and; c) remain continuously accessible so that you can return time
and again to the same topic whenever you wish or have time.
I want to add a few remarks about your exhortation: be as specific as possible. It is invariably
true that a list of interests will include topics which are far too broad to be useful. In my seminars
on research and writing I have to spend an inordinate amount of time on the students choice
of topics for precisely this reason. Every time a student proposes a topic for research it is a
book-length theme not an article. The difficulty is to encourage a small, specific do-able project.
He/she will propose Victorian portraiture; I suggest Lewis Carrolls images of Alice. He/she
will propose The Photo Secession; I suggest the members use of a glass ball as a motif.
He/she will propose Latin American photography; I suggest the digital imagery of Pedro
Meyer. These are not specific cases but merely examples of the need to cut down a vast, general
topic into manageable segments.
It is the same when selecting topics for a visual essay. When I say be as specific as
possible, I mean: take on a project which is containable and can be completed within
a reasonable period of time. Also, the more precise the topic, the easier it is to conduct
research. Now let me give some general examples. If your list contains an interest such
as education, make it My Life as a Student at so-and-so campus; Flowers becomes
Plants That Relate to Architecture; Portraits is reduced to Cleveland Sculptors In
Their Studios. Anyway, the point is taken
For many photographers this list-making might seem an overly pragmatic, too coldly clinical
approach to subject matter. Im sure many will be thinking that it destroys the pleasure of
the visual adventure.
Maybe. But the fact remains that it works, and just wandering around looking for pictures,
hoping that something will pop up and announce itself, does not work. Sorry about that,
photographers, if it offends your fantasy of how a photographer behaves!
All I can tell people is that for forty years I have talked to many of the best photographers
in the world, in various areas of the medium, and there is a common denominator among
all their approaches to the taking of pictures: they are enthusiastic and knowledgeable
about their subject matter and they plan ahead of the actual shooting.
We will return to this idea of planning ahead a little later. But I can foresee another objection
to this issue by an aspiring photographer. That is, all the talk about emphasizing subject matter
indicates we are only advocating a strict, straight recording of faces and places. It is important
that we state, categorically, that we are talking about starting points, for all photographers. In
fact the idea is not restrictive at all; it offers more scope for a continuing evolution of complexity
and, hence, a greater latitude for personal interpretation.
Thats true. The narrower and more clearly defi ned the subject matter at the start, the
more quickly identified is the direction in which to aim the camera, as Steiner said,
and the more pictures are taken. The more the shooting, the greater the enthusiasm
and knowledge for the subject. The greater your knowledge, the more you want to
do it justice and this increases the scope and depth of the pictures. So the process
feeds on itself.
There is an analogy which I like to use: When I landscaped my garden I needed to plant trees.
I could have obtained an instant tree by collecting an assortment of trunks, branches, twigs and
leaves and assembling the bits. But the tree would be dead; it would never grow into something
else. So the starting point was a sapling which, by careful nurturing, and a good deal of
patience, will grow into a tree, often into a form which could not have been predicted. It
seems to me that it is the same with a body of work, of any merit, in photography. The greatest
scope for deep-rooted, organic growth begins with the simplest of premises: the direct visual
encounter with a selected subject.
As you know, I find it useful to answer problematic questions by turning the issue
upside-down, such as the issue of honesty, that can be solved to my satisfaction by knowing
what is dishonest when taking pictures. It is the same here. What is the alternative to an
emphasis on subject matter? It is a frantic grasping for instant gratification which all too
often leads to works displaying visual pyrotechnics but of dubious depth and resonance.
Photographers become pressured into a search for different-ness, a quest for newness
which usually means an unusual technique: your dead-tree syndrome.
There is another problem here. If the images are not rooted in the thing itself, to use
Edward Westons term, then the photographer has not learned anything about the real
world. He/she can only justify the images by reference to self: This is how I felt. Before
long, this leads to incredibly convoluted psychoanalysis in a futile effort to justify the
most banal, superficial work.
How I shudder at the interminable, self-indulgent, often incomprehensible photo-critiques I have

been obliged to attend. My response to all those words about self is that the photographers are
inviting judgment on themselves as people, not photographers, and thats foolish. It seems an
extraordinary presumption that every photographer has a depth of character which demands
revelation! And if the self is shallow, narrow, superficial and inconsequential, then, they are
admitting, so will be the resultant photographs.
And there are no standards. What I mean is there can never be any objective benchmarks
against which to measure the success or failure of these images. If a person says, This is
how I feel, you cannot respond, No, you do not feel that way.
Mind you, I have no objection to anyone using photography for personal therapy. That
seems a valid use of the medium. I guess what we are saying is that these images will
have an audience of only one, the person who made them. Rarely will they have any
resonance or value to a larger audience.
Most photographers would do the world a favor by diminishing, not augmenting, the role of self
and, as much as possible, emphasizing subject alone. Im not being facetious. Such photographers
would be members of an august group the majority of photographers throughout the mediums
history, most of whom remain unknown as personalities. However, the emphasis today is on
a cult of personality and individualism, and I presume that the majority of photographers
who encounter these words are anxious to assert self, as well as subject. Do you have any
words of encouragement?
In todays art-photography environment any one who asserts the prime importance of
subject matter will automatically produce distinctive, different images!
Now I am being facetious. The fact is that all photographs, even of the most prosaic records
of things, are subjective. They are made as a result of various decisions arising out of the
mind of an individual. So inevitably that self will intrude on the picture-making process.
It would be impossible to keep it out. But it is not the primary aim of the images. A unique
style, which is what we are talking about, is the by-product of visual exploration, not
its goal. Personal vision comes only from not aiming at it. Over a long period of time
and through many, many images, the self re-emerges with even greater strength than
if it were the end-product. Ironically, by starting with self, it is missed; ignore it, and
it becomes evident.
Like walking back to my cabin in the forest by starlight: you can only see the direction, the track,
by not looking directly at it. Or back to my tree analogy: the living entity, the visible thing we
call a tree, is only sustained by the root system which is not only out of sight but must be kept
underground for the sake of the growth and to prevent the tree blowing down during the next
wind of change. I know the analogy is being stretched to breaking point, but I was struggling
to link the idea of a clear, intense examination of the thing itself with the hidden self, the
photographers life, which sustains it.
Bad example, but I know what you mean. I think the answer is very simple and is
intimately connected with the choice of subject matter. No two people will make the same
list, or edit it down in the same way, or for the same reasons. Therefore, by the simple
act of choosing a topic to explore photographically, you are asserting self. Then, the more
this topic is a concentration of your whole focus, the more you become a mini-expert
in it, the more chance there is that it will spread and deepen into an intrinsic part of
your total consciousness.
I once watched a television interview with a great violinist. The interviewer asked him to describe
a typical day. The musician said he read scores over breakfast, then composed music in the
morning, thought about music during a walk, practiced the violin in the afternoon, played in a
concert in the evening, met with musician friends to play together, then went to bed dreaming
of the violin. The interviewer was aghast: it seemed such a narrow life. Yes, said the
violinist, initially my life was becoming narrower and narrower in focus. But then something
extraordinary happened. It is as though my music passed through a tiny hole in an hour-glass
and it has since become broader and broader. Now my music is making connections with
every aspect of life.
In a real sense photographers are photographers one hundred percent of the time.
Everything connects. On my way to see you I read on the plane four essays by Michel de
Montaigne and constantly saw links between his ideas and photography even though
the essays were written in the late 1500s. I always find it fascinating to see a movie, for
example, with photographers whom I respect. Inevitably, their later conversations reveal
all sorts of useful observations that they have made, sucked out of the plot, dialogue,
acting, camera angles, pacing, whatever, which can be applied to their own work. Every
event becomes grist to the photographic mill. And scores of learning events are occurring
daily. All this new insight is fed back to the subject of the pictures, so it is no wonder that
who a photographer is becomes revealed through what he/she photographs.
The ultimate aim is an oscillation between self and subject with the images being a physical
manifestation of this supercharged interface between the spirit and the world.
Yes. But let us take a reality check. What you said is right but it sounds profound. The
reality is much simpler, and can be explained with an everyday occurrence. Take a
mother on a beach watching her child build sand castles. She suddenly sees an expression
which tugs at her heart-strings. Without thought, she dips into the picnic basket, aims
the camera, and presses the button. The moment has been captured and will be
treasured for the rest of her life.
Eighty-five percent of all the ingredients of photography are encompassed by this simple
act. The mother has an intimate knowledge of her subject; she is the expert on that child.
She is enthusiastic in her love of the subject. There is no thought of self or creativity,
although both are intimately present. The snap was made without concern for technique.
These are the ingredients which should be present in the acts of all photographers, no
matter how sophisticated, yet they are the very ones which are too often ignored.
Mum, the photographer, has no interest in fancy tricks or style or special visual effects.
Her job is simply to record the moment, and the place. Both the taker and potential viewers
expect to recognize who is in the picture and the circumstances of it. When put into the
family album the photograph might have a simple, factual caption to help: Brighton
Beach, first pair of shorts on Jimmy. The mother/photographer unconsciously uses the
probability factor. It is probable that the connection between the visual appearance of
the event and the resulting photograph will be identifiable with the relationship between
herself and her subject. And it is probable that the end product, the photograph, will
convey to the viewer enough of the same message to make the exercise useful, satisfying
and even meritorious. It will not give total accuracy of the message, not all of the facts, not
all the feelings, but enough to make the exercise worthwhile.
Now the trick is how to convert the 85 percent to 100 percent; how to transform a record of
the event into a satisfying picture; how to make the particular, universal
And that will be a major topic of conversation in a separate section. But before we leave this theme
of subject matter, I wanted to hear your thoughts on an issue which occurred to me when you were
describing the mother on the beach. She not only had an interest in the subject of the picture, which
we agreed was essential, but, more than that, a love of the subject, the child.
I see where you are taking that thought. It is the difference between a thought and feeling,
an intellectual idea and an emotional attachment. I think a photographer can make a
wonderful set of pictures of a topic which is purely intellectually or visually based without
having a deep, abiding love for the subject matter. Lets think of some examples.
Most of the time, unless we knew the photographer very well, it would be impossible to know
the depth of emotion compared with intellectual knowledge. But I would guess Francis Frith was
not particularly in love with the pyramids of Egypt during his trips between 1856 and 1860. He
certainly knew a great deal about them. Did Eugene Atgt love the sculptures at Versailles? I do
not know, but they do not give that impression to me, although they are wonderful images. On
the other hand, I do think he loved the back alleys and shop-fronts and cobble-stoned byways of
old Paris which were to be destroyed and I think it showed.
But then I could be projecting my own feelings for the subject matter onto the images.
I was thinking of Alfred Stieglitzs cloud pictures because we know he said that they are
the equivalents of emotional states. I read what he says but to me they remain pictures
of clouds. His portraits and nudes of his wife, Georgia OKeeffe, seem so much more
intimate and full of love. And there are Harold Edgertons experiments with his invention,
the strobe or electronic flash. They were made to show off the abilities of a new piece
of technology, dispassionately perhaps. Yet they are visual marvels. The one depicting
the flight of a bullet through an apple is one of my favorite images in the whole history
of the medium.
Personally, I have always had trouble with this concept, which is why I raised it. Theres an
implication that emotion and intellect are adversarial, that one precludes the other, that the
rational is antithetical to emotion. Yet my own experience is that opposites always work in
conjunction. If I am intellectually stimulated by a topic it is not long before I am emotional
about it; if I am emotional about something or someone, then I want to know more about
the subject of my affection. So perhaps this is a false issue. The word interest especially
accompanied by an adjective like intense or enthusiastic covers the spectrum about a
subject, from cold rationality to hot passion.
The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to believe that individual pictures can
be very important even when rationally, intellectually made but the bodies of work, the
lifetime achievements of a photographer, which impress me the most are those based
in love as well as knowledge.
I remember the first time I saw a large number of photographs by Stephen Dalton of
insects in flight. Immediately I could sense that Dalton loved these little beasties! He
was also extremely knowledgeable about them, a fact which is underlined by his learned
texts accompanying the images. In addition, it was evident that he carefully planned
his photographs in advance, even to the extent of designing and building specialized
equipment to achieve the end results. So it seems to me that his work employs all the
elements we have been discussing.
A more familiar name, because he appears in the major history textbooks, would be Lewis
Hine, and I am thinking particularly of his work for the Child Labor Committee in the
first decades of this century. His pictures of children working as slave labor in dangerous
environments ooze passion and outrage, yet he had to plan the taking of the images with
cool detachment, even employing subterfuge, otherwise the owners of the mill or mine
would not have given him access. He did not seem to mind that his pictures were badly
reproduced in poor halftones because the subject matter was more important than his
reputation as an artist. As far as I know, he never received a single exhibition of his
work while he was alive. Now, of course, his prints are taken out of context, overmatted
and, rightly, exhibited as art.
I could go on and on. The point is that all photographers of stature whom I admire
seem to share this fundamental characteristic: a deep and long-lasting respect and
love for the subject matter.
The best pictures, for me, are those which go straight into the heart and the blood, and take
some time to reach the brain.
I agree.
SHOOTING THE SINGLE PICTURE 37
SHOOTING
THE SINGLE PICTURE
You see, but you do not observe.
Sherlock Holmes to Dr. Watson,

Arthur Conan Doyle
Bill Jay: Reviewing the position so far: the photographer has selected
a subject in which he/she has a strong involvement, about which a good
deal has been learned from research, reading, writing, talking, and which is
continually accessible. Now the photographer is anxious to begin shooting.
Whats the plan?
David Hurn: This is the fun part. The photographer must always keep
in mind that there is a purpose to the picture. That purpose is to reveal
the chosen aspect of the subject matter, to clarify its essence and to
accomplish this goal through a visually interesting picture.
Which sounds pretty nebulous
But it is not. There are two fundamental elements in all picture-taking:

where to stand and when to release the shutter. These are the two basic
controls at the photographers command position and timing all
others are extensions, peripheral ones, compared to them. So photography
is very simple, which is not to say easy.
Lets take each control and discuss its ramifications. First, position
Where you stand in order to take the picture determines the visual clarity
of the subject, whatever it might be. How much time is at your disposal
to fi nd the exact position will be determined by the movement of the
subject. Obviously, a static subject will give you more time to locate the
right position than one which involves several moving elements. But the
principle is the same.
Take Harry Callahans photograph Cape Cod which is a very simple image depicting a volleyball
net on an expanse of empty beach, with the sea in the background. Nothing could be more
static. I am sure that, to many people, the impression is that Callahan was wandering around,
saw the net, shot a picture and moved on. It looks as if the total amount of time spent on the picture
was a few seconds. In reality Callahan probably spent a long time exploring this particular image,
as we can see from the 11 frames on his contact sheet. We know that he kept shooting from very
slightly different angles and positions; he was not content with first impressions.
I do believe that very often the difference between an average photographer and a really
fine photographer is this willingness to admit doubt, that he/she is not at all certain that
he/she has got it. The fine photographer says, in effect: Well, thats a pretty good effort
but I am willing to admit that many little subtleties of camera position, which I cannot
pre-see, might make the difference between an adequate image and a good one.
And dont forget that this is a person who is photographing a static subject with a medium-
format camera, yet is willing to try all sorts of subtle permutations to increase the success
rate. This is very, very different from the notion of shooting a lot of pictures and hoping to
find something worth printing after looking at the contact sheets.
What you are saying is that even with a static subject containing very few elements there are many
small changes of distance and angle which could make big differences in the effectiveness of the
final picture. How much more complex, then, is the subject which is in motion!
Thats right but the principle is exactly the same. It is just much more difficult to achieve.
The principle is that photography is a matter of tiny details.
I like the phrase which was commonly used at the beginning of the mediums history: photographs
of merit were judged by their meticulous exactitude. Although it was used to denote sharpness it
is equally applicable in terms of small variations in camera position, or timing.
Yes, and as soon as we move from a static subject to a moving one, the element of when to
take the picture is inextricably linked with where to stand. The two elements are no longer
separate acts but are part of the same decision-making process.
Theres a wonderfully symbolic image by Leonard Freed depicting a prisoners hand

reaching through the bars of his jail cell. In this case, the position was pretty much fixed
and the only moving element was the hand gestures. Freed shot a whole roll of film on
this simple subject. It seems to me that this was essential, because he was in a unique,
privileged location and could not reshoot at will and he wanted to make sure that he
captured the best possible picture of the situation. It was not a matter of banging out
36 images in the hope that one will survive: it was an awareness of small incidents
a tension in the wrist, a straightening of a fi nger, a bunched fist and it was not
possible, under the circumstances, to determine which tiny change would produce the
strongest visual impact.
In this case the where was pre-determined but the when was the changing factor.
But in both cases you have emphasized the taking of multiple exposures in order to increase
the chances that small variations are available in the contact sheets for later selection. Although
we are still talking about shooting single pictures, as an end result, the method of achieving the
one good image is to take many frames.
In all cases the pressing of the button is a reasonably continuous process, because you
never know if the next fraction of a second is going to reveal an even more significant,
poignant, visually stronger image than the previous one.
So lets take perhaps the most complex situation say, a beach. Here you have an infinite
number of choices of where to stand, with a continuum of distances from long shots to close-ups,
throughout 360-degree angles of view, and everyone is in motion. What strategy would you use
for making picture decisions in these circumstances?
This is where your list is essential. You are at the beach, or wherever, for a purpose, and
that theme has been subdivided into potential picture-making categories. There is usually
no point in just rambling around a beach looking for pictures in general, because the
visual overload precludes seeing anything. So the fi rst essential is to know, in some
specific way, what you are looking for.
For example, one of your beach categories might be couples showing affection. In this
case, you are more alert and aware of potential subjects, to the exclusion of others. This
is a way to manage the overwhelming number of choices. So, you suddenly see a young
man moving purposefully towards his girlfriend and the possibility is that he is going to
kiss her. You move in to a reasonable position and take a picture; you move a fraction to
the left in order to avoid that tangle of legs behind their profiles; shoot another picture; you
notice the edges of the picture are too complex, so a movement forward; another picture
and nothing. He was just reaching for the sandwiches!
Most of the time the picture is not there, but it might be, and you would have been in the
right position at the right time if the image had materialized. What is even more certain is
that you would not have obtained the picture if you relied on a single grab shot.
You are talking about pregnant moments, potentially interesting situations that might give birth
to a picture, and shooting multiple frames throughout the action, with slight adjustments to
clarify the main part of the subject.
There is a lot of luck in capturing a significant picture, but the good photographers cut
down the waste and make the shot far more likely. When I am looking for pictures I
instinctively sense situations that might contain good shots. I then latch on to the situation
and start shooting. Sometimes that action will build up into a climax in about six to ten
shots, and then drop away. At other times, the action will start to build up but then stop
at nothing. So you have to forget that scene and latch on to another pregnant situation. A
typical example: I saw a group of young people while shooting pictures at Henley Regatta.
I was probably first drawn to them because of their obvious relationship to each other and
their pleasing geometrical arrangement. The girl was fingering a ring, and possibly newly
engaged. I shot a picture. Suddenly the fianc held the ring finger. I shot another picture.
Then he kissed the ring. I shot another picture. He was still kissing it, giving me enough
time to move slightly and improve the geometry of the situation in front of me, and shoot
yet another picture. Thats it. He drops the finger, the action is over.
I want to stick with this method of working for a while for two reasons. The first is that throughout
all my years in academia looking at images by young photographers it is evident that no one has
explained to them this way of shooting and the second reason is that throughout all my years
of looking at images by fine photographers it is evident that they all work in essentially the
same way. There is this huge chasm between what good photographers actually do and what
young photographers think they do.
All we can emphasize is that the great photographers, in all areas of the medium, work
in remarkably similar ways. And if this is true, and I believe it is, then there is a lesson
to be learned from this consistency.
Look at the contact sheets by the best photographers and one fact is evident: they have
committed themselves to a position where they can see most clearly what is taking place;
that position might vary through a succession of images, especially if the subject is
moving; then frames build up to a crescendo where a gesture, expression, or arrangement
of shapes signal that the image is captured or the sequence abruptly ends because
the event has collapsed.
The contact sheets show a rapid, staccato series of images with slight variations, then end. Or,
infrequently, the series builds up to a climax before falling apart. What fascinates me is that you
can see the mind of the photographer at work when looking at contact sheets.
Exactly. Through the contact images you can read the intent of the photographer. You can
nearly always tell what he/she is attempting to achieve; you think: So thats what the
photographer thought might happen. It didnt work out but if it had occurred then he/she
would have been in the right position to capture it. Then someone who knows little about
this way of working will see a single image, say in a book or at an exhibition, and think:
that was a lucky shot! And the response is: well, yes, it was lucky because even after you
have invested all this concentration, it is a gift that all the elements come together in a
perfect union; but, then again, the best photographers are adept at getting luck on their
side and being in a position to capture the luck when it happens.
At an exhibition of photographs someone button-holed Edward Steichen and asked: If you

were to take out of this show all the accidents, how many [pictures] would you have left?
Not many, perhaps, answered Steichen, but have you thought how many great accidents
have been made by great photographers?
I think he must have been quoting me!
I think we should interject that this method of working is not the sole prerogative of the reportage
photographer. I was intrigued to discover at the Center for Creative Photography, in the Ansel
Adams archives, that his famous image, Moon and Half Dome, Yosemite, was one of 10 almost
identical exposures which he made at the time.
True. Many large-format photographers work in a remarkably similar manner to reportage

photographers: Walker Evans, for example. If you look at his proof prints you see that
he did not adamantly decide: this is where the camera must be. He often made subtle
changes in viewpoint of the same building facade. There are very few photographers I
admire who do not work in this way, and that includes image-makers who are seemingly
very different from the reportage type.
I know when I am shooting portraits that the primary concern is viewpoint, or the angle at which
the person must be photographed in order to isolate the most important part of the picture, the
face. Nothing kills an otherwise interesting shot more quickly than a messy background which
clashes with or confuses the profile. Once that is clear, I can concentrate on other elements in the
background and it is then that I become aware of the frame, the edges of the picture. Ideally
I want an image in which a) the main area is revealed with maximum clarity b) all elements
within the frame are in harmonious relationships c) all these internal patterns are in harmony with
the frame itself and d) the moment of exposure is at a significant fraction of a second in which
something surprising is taking place. Is that asking too much?
It is fine to ask if you dont expect to receive! But that is the driving, obsessional force
behind photography, the fact that although the elements are simple to state they are
extremely difficult to integrate. Aiming for your goal is worthwhile as long as you realize
it is a constant effort, rarely to be achieved. If you reached those heights more than a few
times, you would be a great photographer.
Seriously, it is almost impossible to juggle more than a few variables many of which
have lives of their own and are moving in independent, unpredictable ways and keep
them in mind during the briefest of moments when you are composing a picture. All you
can hope to do is keep an eye on the main element (it helps if it is static) and then organize
two or three sub-elements by position and timing, shooting frame after frame. All the other
elements depend on the luck of timing. It is wonderful if they all happen to fall into place
together. The chances are that they will not. But we keep trying.
Let us take a couple of your own images where more than a couple of elements all fuse into an
harmonious arrangement. I would like you to talk us through your actions and thought processes
during the shooting. For example, Promenade at Tenby, where a dog is asleep in the foreground,
a cannon is pointing out to sea, a woman in a hat is walking away
This is a good example because the image looks complex but was, in fact, quite simple.
When I arrived at the scene I immediately saw certain elements: the cannon, the people
asleep, the dog. I quickly maneuvered myself into a position where these three basic
elements were all isolated from each other but together formed a strong diagonal. That
was where taken care of. I shot a picture but knew it was not right. It was a bit too static
for my taste. So I moved away, to the other side of the hill, saw a couple of other possible
images, then returned to the original scene. Now, more was happening. The basic elements
were still in place but people were walking up the hill behind the cannons muzzle, other
figures were walking along the skyline to the left, someone was sitting down, a boy was
playing on the cannon itself, and so on. I found my original position, altered it slightly
to include the seated figure, and now I am watching all the other moving people as
they interact and change the visual pattern. Now I am shooting small bursts of pictures
because I cannot be sure that the flux of movement will be arrested at exactly the right
moment. Only on the contact sheet can I see the one frame where all the elements
work together.
In this case the key foreground elements were not moving so I had the luxury of
concentrating on the sub-elements.
Then let us take an example in which every element is moving: Miners Week, Barry Island,
where the foreground depicts a father and child playing at the sea edge but the background
beach is a patchwork quilt of moving elements.
Let me first say that this image is part of a major series on the changing culture of Wales.
A section of the Wales project is on coal mining. A subsection of coal mining is the one
time of year when all the mines close together for the annual summer holiday. I was at the
beach for a specific purpose: to depict a miner at play with his child during his vacation
at the seaside. Everyone on that beach was a miner or a member of a miners family. So I
already knew what I was looking for. Thats important.
Having seen this miner with his daughter I was struck by the warm relationship between
them. My initial reaction was to choose an angle of approach, to move into position from
which I could clearly see the relationship isolated from the confusing background, lit
effectively so that the faces were revealed, and forming an interesting shape in and of
itself. The next decision was: how far should I move towards or away from them? Too
close and I would eliminate the idea that they were playing on a crowded beach; too far
away and they would lose dominance and become just another small element. So the
correct distance was quite precise.
Then I looked for another element in the background which I would call a significant
other; some small object or person or something, anything, which had visual appeal.
I am now watching the relationship between father and daughter, and at the same time
keeping an eye on the background element. I shoot pictures when a gesture, expression
or whatever in the foreground is balanced by a shape in the background. I can barely
control these two factors, especially if the secondary element is moving. I might have
to shift six inches sideways or back and forth, shooting several frames in order to keep
the elements in balance.
What I cannot do is keep track of every element in the background. My eye is making
rapid flips across all these details to check on the overall pattern but basically Im centered
on the foreground/background element relationship. I have to see the contact sheet to
know what has happened. I know that the foreground is fine because that is what I have
concentrated on but my choice of image to enlarge will depend on the geometry or pattern
of the general background, which I cannot predict.
A painter can compose the main elements and then add the significant details in
precisely the right places. In photography, you cannot do that. You are hoping, almost
by instinct, that the small details which make or break the picture are going to be in
the right positions.
How many frames would you shoot of such a situation?
It depends. Half a dozen frames would be the average, on a complex scene such as the
beach. Paradoxically, the more static the scene the more images I tend to shoot. When
there is only one moving element, say the hand of the person you are photographing,
it is very, very difficult to decide which gesture, which position of the wrist or fi ngers
is going to be the most significant.
And now we have traced a pretty circle back to the idea that the more static the picture,
the more emphasis will be placed on details. So here is another issue: While you have been
talking, an incessant little voice in the back of my head has been prodding me to raise the, to
some, contentious ideas implied by good design, geometry, composition. These notions
of harmony and beauty are antithetical to many contemporary attitudes to street photography,
especially in academia. Lets clear the air.
I hope we have not implied that there are rules of good design or that we are advocating
composition based on drawing lines over the image! Nor am I very interested in design
where the sole purpose of the picture is to demonstrate the cleverness of the photographer
in finding patterns in peeling paint or shadow shapes. Pictures which are solely about
pattern-making are pretty boring.
However, I do believe that good design is essential when its purpose is the clear projection
of the subject matter, that is, when design is the vehicle not the destination. If you
like, function produces form. When you have most clearly revealed the essence of the
subject, the chances are you have produced a good design, at least in my defi nition
of the term. The design, though, has come second; it has followed the first priority,
to reveal the subject.
The issue of whether or not the image should be carefully composed is self-evident as far as
Im concerned. If the image is well designed, you want to look at it; if it is poorly structured,
you dont care about the image and, hence, the subject. It does not seem reasonable for a
photographer to produce an image of a subject which he/she purports to care about, only
to reject the viewer because the image is visually unappealing.
Yet that attitude exists. A short while ago I was at an exhibition in a university fine-arts gallery
featuring photographs taken of people in blighted urban settings. They were bad pictures, in
my opinion. Disorganized, sloppy, lacking clarity and even badly printed. Unfortunately the
photographer wanted to know what I thought. I tried to explain that there is a rich history of this
type of social documentation from which we can learn; specifically, how the elements can be
clarified in order to produce effective pictures.
His response was interesting. He said he knew about that old stuff but he deliberately created
bad pictures in order to reflect the confusion, angst, chaos and violence of the real world. I
was then treated to a dose of post-modernism, structuralist theory and the assertion that these
prints reflected how he felt as an artist.
Bad photographers have many excuses! And what I mean by bad photographers is
that no one is interested in looking at their images. Surely, if the images were visually
compelling then more people would want to look at them for longer periods of time and
the subject would have a greater chance of revealing itself.
That is true even with a difficult, abstract idea like chaos. The extraordinary ability of
photographers like Ian Berry or Sebastio Selgado is that they could shoot pictures in the
same situation alongside many other photographers of lesser ability and not only clearly
reveal the chaos but also produce images of power which so impress themselves on your
consciousness that they are never forgotten. Thats what I would call good design, which
is inseparable from good photography.
This reminds me of a conversation I once had with Graham Greene. He said that the most
difficult parts of a book to write were the boring bits. I asked him what he meant by
that remark. Well, he said, the parts that are full of action are easy to write. But the
difficulty comes in the linking sections where nothing happens. The trick is to write them
in such a way that the reader is interested in continuing.
Yes, there are some situations where it is more difficult to obtain interesting pictures
than in others. But it can be done, with effort, and thats what we should strive for, not
making excuses for failures.
Heres another objection to your notion of good pictures which I have heard bandied
around in academia. The argument unfolds like this: if you take a beautiful image of a subject
depicting a social problem then the viewers reaction will be what a great photographer,
what a fine picture, and the social message will be lost. The attention is focused on the
maker, not the subject.
I do not agree with that idea, which I have heard before. It is the humble artist syndrome: I
try not to make good pictures because I want to submerge myself as an individual, an artist,
and allow the subject to rise the surface. It is such a stupid argument.
What is indisputable is that the better the picture the more people will look at it over
a longer period of time which means the subject matter will have more resonance
whatever the original reason for admiring the image. I have never understood the
idea that the picture is too good; it is never too good as long as the subject has been
clearly revealed. The photographers aim is to create beautiful pictures, of any and
all subject matter.
I agree. What many artists, especially those who attempt political commentary, tend to forget is
that photography is a picture-making medium. If the primary motive of a person is to comment on
ideas then a more effective medium would be words. I do not understand how any photographer
can justify making bad photographs, even if the goal is some sort of political/social message.
And there does seem a corollary at work here: the more politically correct the message, the
dumber the picture. Personally I would rather see a beautiful image of any subject than a bad
picture of a flavor-of-the-month idea. Just before we had this conversation I was looking at Flora
Photographica: Masterpieces of Flower Photography 1835 to the Present compiled by William
Ewing. Many of the images are stunningly beautiful and the measure of their beauty is that I now
want to learn more about flowers, a subject which has not been particularly interesting to
me in the past. So, yes, the subject matter is transmitted by good design, geometry of the
picture, beauty, call it what you will. I am sure a book of bad flower photographs would
not ignite my interest in plants for the simple reason I would not want to look at them long
enough or with enough intensity.
For many people the word beauty is associated with the predictable pictures previously
seen and already in their memory banks, clich images of sunsets, small furry animals,
pin-ups, postcard views, and so on. For me, most great photographs displaying beauty
reveal a sensation of strangeness, not predictability, a kind of shock non-recognition inside
the familiar. They are the opposite of clichs; they have a quality beyond the visually
obvious. But even if it is difficult to define, beauty still lurks behind the scenes. I like the
remark of Robert Adams: The word beauty is unavoidable it accounts for my decision
to photograph There appeared a quality, beauty seemed the only appropriate word for
it, in certain photographs, and I am compelled to live with the vocabulary of this new
sight though over many years [I] still find it embarrassing to use the word beauty, I fear
I will be attacked for it, but I still believe in it.
I was about to end this topic with the remark that beauty is so charged as a word that we are not
being of much practical help to photographers. But then I remembered we started on the idea by
discussing good design which seems a factor in the equation. This thought led Josef Koudelka to
take proof prints of near misses, cut out all the elements in the image, and rearrange them as
a guide to the picture he should have taken. Seems a good exercise
When I look at great photographs of any type there seems to be a common ground: a sense
of inevitability. I cannot imagine how the images could have been designed in any other
way. They seem complete just as they exist.
Bring us back to earth, David. How much is good design a matter of luck compared to instinct
sharpened by experience?
When you are photographing a scene in which all the elements are moving, there is no
doubt you are lucky if they all coalesce at the same time into a beautiful picture. You
attempt to see everything and release the shutter at the precise moment, but usually
the most you can do is be in precisely the right place so that you will get the shot if
it happens.
It is also true that a good deal of experience means you are more aware of small elements
which can make a big difference, in very practical ways. One of the lessons you learn is
that dogs are very useful in backgrounds! For some reason they have a shape which is very
distinctive. So if I see, say, a dog leaping for a ball in the background, I would instinctively
move this way or that in order to integrate that element with the main subject.
Experience probably teaches the subconscious mind which helps you find the right position,
organize the separation of elements, sense the coming together of actions, just a little bit
quicker and more efficiently. So, yes, experience obviously helps which is another reason
to shoot lots of pictures. With any luck, one of them will be beautiful!
CREATING CONTACTS 47
CREATING CONTACTS
Look here, upon this picture, and on this.
William Shakespeare,
Hamlet
Bill Jay: Our hypothetical photographer is now fully involved with his/her
chosen subject, has shot several films with the working method you have
described, and is now anxious to see the first images the contact sheets.
David Hurn: So let us emphasize that this is a vitally important stage,

which is why we are giving it a separate section. I will make no excuses for
the faint-hearted: the making of a perfect contact sheet from a processed
film is essential.
What do you mean by perfect?
I mean that it must be as sharp as technically possible (which usually

means ensuring flat, even contact between negatives and paper) and
correctly exposed and printed. A fuzzy, unclean contact sheet is useless;
a correctly made group of contact prints is one of the photographers
most useful tools.
In a perfect world every frame on the film would have received a perfect
exposure, all the negatives would have identical densities, and a blanket
exposure of the contact paper would reveal every tiny image with
maximum clarity. In practice, several frames might be under- or over-
exposed and print too dark or light on the contact. These small areas must
be shaded, dodged, or burned in so that every image is perfectly printed.
How can you judge the merits of the image if you cannot see it?
I know that some readers might think this is a difficult chore for a print
which no one will see. My response is: contact sheets will be seen, by you,
and you cannot make intelligent choices about blocked-up or burned-out
images. Also, if printing a contact sheet so that each image is correctly
exposed is so difficult then you do not have the basic skill to make a final
print worth showing to anyone.
I am smiling not at your adamancy but in memory of all the student work that has been thrust
upon me. Usually the first encounter is a box of badly printed proofs which tell me very little
about what the photographer is attempting, so I ask to see the contact sheets. The funny/sad
thing is that there might be a dozen images I can actually see on a contact sheet of 36 frames
with all the others indecipherable dark or light rectangles. I am obviously expected to guess
at the original images. So let us repeat this fact for extra emphasis: the contact sheet is most
important because it is the first time you actually see a picture as opposed to reality you must
be able to see the picture clearly. No ifs, ands or buts.
Examining the contact sheet, it should also be emphasized, is not just for picking the best
picture
For me, the contact sheet has four main purposes:
1) I shoot a lot of what I call dear diary pictures. Those images have no foreseeable
use and I never intend to enlarge them. But they act as simple visual records, personal
reminders of people met and places visited. I will also shoot a frame of a street sign, to
give me the location of other frames on the same roll of film. Its easier than writing down
the information in a notebook. One of the photographers greatest pleasures is to look
back at ten-year-old contact sheets. The images provide an open door and total recall to
the pleasures (and pains) of the past.
2) The contact sheet is a valuable teacher. The image is now static and there is all the time
in the world to make choices. You stand or fall by how critical you are with your own
work and by the decisions that are made from a careful analysis of the contact sheet. The
emotional involvements with the event at the time of shooting are now in the past. It is
time for a cold, critical and objective appraisal of the image itself. Presumably, when a
photographer presses the button it is because he believes the image is worthwhile. It rarely
is. Why? If the photographer is self-critical he can attempt to analyze the reasons for the
gap between expectation and actuality. This is a most effective learning process. The
contact sheet reveals how I have been thinking, and how efficiently my instincts have
controlled the framing of the subject. If I have trained myself to deal with the small size, it
also teaches me by revealing my mistakes without the expense of making enlargements.
I can analyze each frame by asking myself such questions as: would the image have been
better if I had moved a few feet to the left or right; could I have improved the picture by
moving closer or further back; what would have been the result of releasing the shutter
a second earlier, or later? Such ruthless self-examination through a contact sheet is one
of the best teaching methods.
3) Marking the contact sheet isolates any particular frame in order that the images can be
retrieved more quickly. It is a convenient time- and money-saver. I use a different marking
system (various colors of pencil) to identify the various uses of the photograph, whether
magazine, exhibition print or personal gift. I also write on a large white area on the contact
sheet, masked specifically for this purpose, and make notes to myself. These notes not
only include a numbering system, and short captions of event, person or location, but also
remind me that the picture should be reshot at a later date.
4) Looking at the contact sheets of other photographers work allows me to understand

their methods of working and their thinking processes. I gain an understanding of, and
often respect for, their final prints by this analysis. What is amazing to me is that I can see
that their working methods are so similar little sequences which show the photographer
stalking the image, as we have already described.
I would like you to expand your remarks about the filing/marking system. Obviously, we are
not talking about absolutes here other photographers will have their own, equally efficient,
methods. But I think photographers will be interested in your method if only to emphasize
the important principles.
Fair enough. The essential principle of any fi ling system is that you can retrieve any
negative you need, quickly and efficiently.
As I said earlier, I make my contact sheets on 9 x 12 inch sheets [a standard size in

Britain]. I could print all 36 frames on an 8 x 10 inch sheet of paper. However the extra
size allows me to contact 120 film on the same size paper. In both cases a broad white
space is printed at the top, in which I can write minimal captions, such as date, place,
description of event.
But the most important information is a numbering system which, in my case, is

organized like this:
The first two letters of my last name attached to the initial letter of my first name ( this
is necessary in my case as my contact sheets will be filed in Magnums office and simple
initial only might be duplicated by another photographer, with ensuing chaos); year; job
or project number (e.g. 001 = family snaps; 002 = Welsh miners etc.); a letter indicating
if the images were also shot in color; number of contact sheet, from my fi rst ever to
the present, e.g. #9,999. And, of course, the individual frames are already numbered
on the negatives.
The contact sheets are stored in ring binders; the negatives, in separate ring binders, have
identical matching numbers. So if someone wants negative #17, taken in 1990 on project
003, I can find it with no trouble. Each individual will have a slightly different numbering
system but its function will remain the same: efficient retrieval of any specific image,
no matter how long ago it was taken. For this reason, there is no point in having an
efficient numbering system unless this number is written on the back of every print
at the time of enlarging it.
I like the idea of over-size printing paper for contacts, allowing for a caption strip, but surely there is
not enough space for the details which are necessary when working professionally.
No, I need a separate data base for detailed captions, containing as much information as
necessary, but these too are numbered with the same system. Until recently these captions
were also kept in ring binders but now they are in my computer.
Then there are the multi-colored marks on each contact sheet
Yes, I use several grease-pencils of different colors when marking frames on the contact
sheets.
As soon as I see the contacts, I mark any image of interest, for whatever reason, in
white.
Then, if at all possible, I like to put aside the contacts for a few weeks. This serves to
distance me from the emotion of the picture-taking moment so that I am better able to see
the image dispassionately. Too often when we look at our own pictures we remember the
excitement of the event, which becomes mixed up with our cool judgment of the results.
Then again, if an image was particularly difficult to shoot, we justify it: something so
hard to achieve must be worthwhile. For these reasons, I like to show the contacts
to a photographer I respect. This person is unaware of my feelings, can cut through
the memories and fantasies, and will only see what is actually there, in the image
itself. Anyway, the images which I select as being useful for a particular project are
marked in yellow.
During these examinations I come across images which are give-aways. These are prints
which I have promised to send to the subjects. I always make it a point to send out prints
if I have promised to do so. In fact it is an essential act, for two reasons. First, it would be
rude not to keep your word. Second, it makes it difficult for the next photographer to obtain
cooperation from the subject if you have broken a promise. So, tell the truth: no, I cannot send
you a print, or yes, I will send you a print. The give-aways I mark up in blue.
At a later date I will look for images which will be used in publications and exhibitions,
or will be sold as original prints to collectors. These fi nal selections will be marked
in red.
I feel sure that a lot of photographers are now thinking about the time involved in making
perfect contact prints, creating an elaborate filing system, writing extended captions, color-
coding the contact images and they thought a photographer was continually out there,
shooting pictures!
Perhaps all this does sound complex and time-consuming, but, believe me, the time saved
in being able to quickly retrieve any given negative, and to know when and under what
circumstances it was taken, more than compensate for the initial work involved.
Then again, it is a myth that the photographer is always shooting pictures. I would guess
that three-quarters of my time is spent on research, reading and thinking about the
project before shooting and analyzing the contacts after shooting. Elliott Erwitt, who is
responsible for most of the witticisms that I remember in photography, has asserted that
he cannot recall a project that took more than five seconds to shoot! And hes right. Five
seconds equals lots of 1/250-second exposures.
I am sure we all know some individuals who wander around with their ever-present
cameras and call themselves photographers who do not invest time in preparation or clear
thinking and therefore do not take many pictures. Photography demands a lot of work
before and after the actual shooting.
Talking of bad photographers, I have often heard it said that one of their characteristics
is that they look at their contacts in order to discover which is the best picture, whereas
a good photographer examines each frame on a contact sheet and asks: why is this one
not a good picture?
I agree. A good photographer is always striving for the perfect image, knowing that it
is rarely, if ever, likely to be achieved. Therefore his/her presumption is that the image
is not ideal, so the question becomes: why not? This is what I meant by the contact
being a learning experience.
I think this fact has a lot to do with the reluctance of bad photographers to show their
contact sheets or proof prints to others, yet I have never seen this reluctance among the
best photographers. Indeed, the opposite seems to be the rule. The finest workers urge
you to look at contacts and proofs.
I am puzzled by photographers hiding their contacts as though they were secret, private
things. I would go further. I already know which images I like, so I would rather show
colleagues the bad ones. They might find a good image which I had mistakenly overlooked
or rejected. I do not want them to endorse my own choice but to help me discover new
images, ideas or directions.
So yes, all the best photographers of my acquaintance share their contacts or proof
prints. They have very few secrets from each other, and share ideas and advice on
upcoming projects. There is very little competition in the negative sense, even when
two photographers are covering the same event. They know that if they are good
photographers, the images will be seen very differently; if they are bad photographers
then it does not matter.
Back to the issue of looking at contact sheets: I have noticed that when you talk one-on-one
to photographers you are more interested in their contact sheets and failures than in their
best prints.
For the reason I want other photographers to see my doubtfuls. There is not a great deal
of pleasure in only seeing what someone else considers their best pictures. I cannot
participate fully in the process or help the person in any meaningful way. In this role of a
critic I can best help by first understanding what the photographer was trying to achieve.
The contact sheets provide this entry into his/her mind.
I do not want to end these remarks on the contact sheet without reiterating that fine pictures
depend on very subtle, small details. Your point about making perfect contact prints so that you
can see these details in each and every frame is well-taken. But the image, even if well-printed,
is still tiny. How do you examine the images on contact sheets?
Initially I use a large self-illuminated magnifying glass which sits in its own stand. It
is not very powerful but it enables me to see several adjacent images at the same time,
so I can make comparisons between similar frames in the sequence. Then I switch to
a superior quality high-magnification lupe, in order to see the smallest detail in an
individual image.
Then you make proof prints from the selected frames.
Yes. All those images I like are printed on 8 x 10 inch paper. Many photographers prefer
making 5 x 7 inch prints but, for me, the larger proofs have several advantages. They are
easier to assess when tacked up on the wall (three of the walls in my office are covered
in cork for this purpose) and the slight increase in cost is offset by the fact that I can sell
them for reproduction if necessary.
I am struck by how many great photographers I have visited who have walls of prints which they
are in the process of considering, the ones which have not yet been totally accepted into the
best-picture category. Dorothea Lange used to call these her second-lookers. Diane Arbus
tacked these prints all over the wall opposite her bed, so they would be the last things she saw at
night and the first things on waking up.
It is important to live with these images to see which ones last. But it is even more
important when working on a picture essay, for reproduction or exhibition, so you can
see at a glance how the images work alongside each other or in sequence. The pace of
the project becomes visible.
And the special requirements of the picture essay is what we will discuss in the next section.
Meanwhile, many photographers reading these words will notice that we have not discussed
processing and printing and they might conclude that these procedures are unimportant.
Of course they are important. The second you load a camera with film there is a
presumption that you want to end up with a technically good picture. But there are many
fine books in print which are devoted to these matters.
So let us concentrate, for a few moments, on what you consider the most important aspects
of processing and printing.
The easiest way to end up with a good print is to start with a perfect negative, which
means correct exposure, correct development, and perfect cleanliness. If you have
achieved these characteristics then it is almost a mechanical certitude that you will
(or can) obtain a good print.
Making a negative is a chemical process. The more uniform you make each step in the
process, the nearer you will get to consistent results.
Presuming that the initial exposure is correct, then the fi rst link in the chain is the
developer. The making up of the developer is in fact important. I have discovered to my
cost that the worlds water sources are not necessarily chemically the same. I suppose there
is a logic in this. Different countries, states and cities put different additives into their water
supplies. These will produce different development times in the various places. Rule of
thumb: if you are going to be in a new place for some time then do tests.
The next link in the chain is the temperature of the developer. I have discovered that it
is difficult to find two thermometers that give identical readings therefore always use
your own. In my case I am so paranoid that I have two matching thermometers, both very
expensive ones, that I check against each other before starting a developing session.
The next link is the development time. As I have already hinted, do tests on your
combination of developer mixture, using your thermometer and for your given time.
As long as you now keep the stop bath and fixer at roughly the same temperature you
will get consistent results.
Make sure everything is kept very clean: no dust and always filter liquids. I use doubled-up
coffee filters. Everything from then on will be easier.
Or you could send all your exposed films to a processing lab, which is standard for most
photographers in your position. So why do you insist on developing your own films?
It is, of course, possible to fi nd a lab that will take care of all the above. I expect the
majority of professionals do. In my own case the negative is so important I find it so
difficult to get a picture I enjoy that the thought of damaging it is more than I could
bear, particularly if someone else makes the mistake. I feel I have to take this responsibility
so I do it myself. However its the most boring time of my life.
And then number the negatives and make sure you can find them again!
Having got the negatives, remember that, by definition, they will always have a historical
use, so make sure they last. Take care of them and file them in archival storage bags.
These cost more but they are very important. Also devise a method of accurate filing.
When you have 40,000 negative sheets, each with six strips of negatives, you will realize
that putting one back in the incorrect place is the same as putting it into the waste
paper basket.
I noticed that you did not recommend any particular brand or manufacturer of chemicals.
Go and see a mixed exhibition of the work of photographers you admire. See if you can
instantly notice what film/developer combination they use. If you cant tell the differences
then you have proved that it doesnt really matter. I can easily mention five photographers
whom I admire who all use different combinations. I have no idea how they came to
their own decisions. Probably it was as simple as what brands were stocked by the local
shop. The reality is that every manufacturer has spent fortunes on research so they have
probably all got it right! You will have no problems, if you start with the paper instructions
in the box and then adjust for your own eccentricities and ways of working.
Any last thoughts on the making of prints?
Remember that its no use having the worlds best lens on your camera and a second-class
one on your enlarger. Equipment is as good as the worst component. All the best printers
seem to give the best advice. Do the work under the enlarger. Always leave the paper in
the print developer for exactly the same time at the same temperature. Sadly as it is
wasteful do not process too many prints in the same developer. It has a surprisingly
short life for the maximum quality of print. If I had my choice I would always have
an expert do my prints for me. I would of course supervise until the printer knew my
peculiarities. I am a great believer that someone who spends his/her life in the darkroom,
and actually likes it, is always going to do a better job than me, who prints almost as a
casual event. If I have to print (for cost reasons) I always go in the darkroom for a month
at a time usually the winter and spend the first week re-learning. Like most things
practice makes better, if not perfect. Kelly Kirkpatrick, who prints many of Mark Kletts
negatives and is as fine a printer as I know, visited me in Wales for a short time. She
generously offered to make a few prints for me, from negatives of a project which was an
extension of the time I had spent in Arizona with Mark. She made wonderful prints even
though she was working in a strange, unfamiliar darkroom. The frustration for me is that I
cannot match them even though I carefully watched every stage of the process.
THE PICTURE ESSAY 55
THE PICTURE ESSAY

Memory demands an image.
Bertrand Russell
Bill Jay: So far we have emphasized single pictures but most of the
archetypal images in photography have been extracted from the multi-
image projects of which they were intrinsic and essential elements. We tend
to forget this fact, that photographers of merit tend to work on projects
involving many pictures, not just on single masterpieces.
David Hurn: Also, we tend to forget that many of these images

were initially taken on professional assignments where the number
of selected images depended on the purpose of the pictures, such
as a magazine story or a commissioned exhibition. So the intended
audience, and the method used to reach that audience, are important
factors when planning a major project.
Photographers should not put pictures in a box under their beds

and be the only ones to see them. If they put film in their cameras
it presupposes that they want to record what they see and show
somebody else. Photography is about communication.
Once the photographer has selected a project theme which can sustain
his/her enthusiasm for a considerable length of time, the first question to
be answered is: what is the purpose?
Yes. Too many projects dribble on for years because the photographer
has not cut it down to the essentials. They do not ask: Why am I
doing this? What interests me? Where, and how, will it be used. It
is no good spending seven weeks shooting pictures for your local
newspaper if it is only going to use one photograph.
Too many people waste time taking unusable photographs. If they

cannot be used, you are back to the box of prints under the bed. If
I am doing one picture on a housing estate and I decide that the
most frightening thing is that the place is empty. I do not wander
around photographing kids in the playground or the local school. I
concentrate on the one important picture.
I meet so many photographers who wish to work in some documentary way with no
idea of how to put together a story in pictures. A passionate social concern does not
automatically make you a good photographer.
It is true for artist-photographers who have no idea how to put together an exhibition in pictures, or
a monograph, or a portfolio in an art/photography journal. The same principles apply.
The second question, once the purpose of the project has been determined, is: how
many pictures are required? Most projects are capable of being divided into many, many
different picture-headings, so you have to decide on the number required for the final
purpose. It might be only one image or perhaps seven prints for a magazine layout; 40 for
a one-person exhibition; 120 for a major book, or whatever.
Once you know the number of images which will complete the essay, you must divide your
topic or theme into that many picture-headings. List them, and alongside each heading
jot down the words: overall/establishment picture, medium distance/relationship
picture, and close-up picture. These notes act as a shooting script and remind you that
the final essay must have pace, that is, you avoid visual boredom by changing the rhythm
of the photographs within the set. Obviously, you do not preconceive the essay but you
must be aware of the basic structure in advance of shooting. The aim is to take images
which become your memory of the event.
Explain what you mean with a simple example.
Ask somebody who has been to a protest march or demonstration what they remember
about the event and they might reply: There were about 6,000 people there, most of them
very quiet, many of them were middle class and a lot of them were women with kids.
Most were reasonably smartly dressed. When you look at their contacts you see five
people in unusual clothes and a punch-up that lasted all of three minutes during the
three-and-a-half-hour march. The pictures do not relate to the photographers memory of
the event. Too often, the photographer looks for the visually strong picture rather than
covering what actually happens.
Why? One excuse is that this is what papers want to publish. Perhaps more accurate is
that most photographers do not have the ability to record the event as it is. They take
the easy option, the visual clich.
The important point is to plan, in order to provide a basic frame-work to which you can return
whenever you are stuck. It does not mean that you must rigidly adhere to every picture-heading
if the reality is different from your preconceptions.
No, but you cut down the preconceptions by exhaustive research on the subject. Thats
another reason why it is important to become a mini-expert on the topic before the
picture-taking stage. And not all research is cerebral; it includes visual research and
research by experience. For example, if the subject is an event which is repeated, you
should first visit it without a camera or at least plan not to seriously shoot pictures, but
make visual impressions of the key elements.
For example, say you decide to create a picture essay on a particular club: you start by
going to the club, sitting down and spending an evening there, looking, absorbing, being
a part of the atmosphere. When you leave, write down in a notebook 12 headings or
however many images you need to complete the project. You might jot down loneliness
(because some members seem to spend the whole time alone) or people in conversation
or competition at the pool table or heavy drinkers or flirting or whatever stuck in
your mind as an impression. Of course, this list will depend to a considerable extent on
the personality of the photographer.
This is your memory of the event.
Then you go back to the club and attempt to photograph those headings. This means that
if there is a club with a stripper in the corner you do not spend nine weeks out of ten
photographing the stripper and one week photographing the more difficult headings.
You may photograph all of the 12 headings on the first night. Then look at your contacts
and when you get a photograph which fits one of the headings you tick it off and do not
photograph that any more. You then concentrate on the other 11 headings. The first picture
is almost certainly going to be the stripper because the simplest thing in the world is to
photograph some person taking off his/her clothes.
After a couple of nights, you have completed all the easy, pictorial photographs and can
then concentrate on the equally important, but more taxing, aspects of the project.
The list which you wrote down after the first visit tells you that these are just as important
as the stripper. For the first time you spend more time on the difficult photographs. When
you complete the list of 12 headings, you know you have finished the project. You have
the story. It is bound to work in a personal way, because that is how you remember it. That
does not mean that you cannot branch out from your chosen 12, or six or 20 headings.
If something exciting happens in the corner, which is not on the list, of course you
take pictures. But it does mean that every time you get stuck you have a framework
to go back to, and most important it does mean that you know when you have
completed the story.
With this method you do not spend five weeks shooting pictures desperately hoping that
the story will somehow make sense. You do not end up with 80 percent of one situation and
20 percent covering the other dozen or so equally important happenings.
The next step is to spread out the images or, in your case, tack them up to a wall, and see if
there is enough visual variety within the set.
Yes. You might have too many images taken from the same distance. So you choose the
best image from that group and re-shoot the weaker ones as close-ups or long-shots or in
any manner which imparts a sense of pace to the final set.
So you now have a finished essay with the number of images demanded by the end result, which
have covered the key elements of the topic, which have visual variety and which accurately
reflect your memory of the event or theme. This last point is important because it reprises the
idea of honesty. You have fairly represented the subject matter, as much as that is possible
from a subjective point of view.
My best pictures are the ones that say: Thats what I remember the place to be like. It
is very rare that they accomplish this goal. It is difficult to match your photographs with
your memory. But that is what photography is all about.
I agree. It seems so fundamental, yet rarely discussed for some reason. But do not let us leave
the photographer with the idea that this method of planning an essay or the importance of
memory only apply to journalistic endeavors. They are equally good principles for all types of
photography. My own interest, as you know, is taking portraits of photographers whom I meet
during my travels. These are not intended for any publication or exhibition but the same basics
of planning, awareness of pacing and, most important of all, a sense of memory are essential
ingredients. Certainly when I am looking through the contacts I am more interested in
the images which most strongly conjure up the individuals words, the tone of voice, the
personality, than I am concerned with the best picture. It is the most potent memory-joggers
which are the most valuable.
I do not expect young photographers to take the best pictures in the world. I do expect
them to have exciting ideas, well thought out, that they know how to finish and put together
into a coherent essay. Learn to get the basic things right, then worry about all the other
brilliant ideas that you have for doing things in different ways. Do not hide behind not
being able to do it the simple way by pretending that you are above such things.
It is important to go and do the essay, finish it, try to get it published or exhibited
and realize it is there for historical use at a later date. Then get on and do the next
set of pictures.
And learn from the mistakes and failures of the just-completed one, which, as you have already
emphasized, is the most effective learning process. Which brings up an issue which is also
important but rarely discussed: photography is a medium of quantity as well as quality. What I
mean by this is that you cannot be a photographer by aspiring to be one, or learning everything
there is to be known about photography. Photographers produce photographs. And many of them.
Like every other skill, photography is learned by continuous and dedicated practice.
Thats true. But the practice must be directed. In other words, it is not a learning process
to wander around banging off frames of film for the sheer fun of shooting pictures.
You learn by concentrating on a subject, planning the actual shooting and critically
evaluating the results.
Thats true, too. I still want to make the point that enthusiasm for the subject leads to a lot of
exposed frames. I will now tell an anecdote which involves you
You had just arrived in Arizona for a years stay and I took you to the local photography dealer.
You asked if he stocked brand-x film. Not knowing who you were, he said: Yes sir, and placed
a single cassette on the counter. You said: Fine, Ill take 1,000 of those! He was taken aback,
to put it mildly. Now I know for a fact, because you were living with me at the time, that every
frame had been exposed within the year. That equals an average of 100 frames per day, seven
days a week. So dont tell me quantity is not important.
No, I wont. But the quantity is not important for its own sake; it must be focused on
specific subjects in the ways that I have described. Also, I am worried about setting
targets in terms of how many frames you should be shooting. There are no rules. You
will take far fewer images if you are working with medium- or large-format cameras.
Thats obvious.
To some extent, your quantity will also depend on the types of subject and even your own
personality. An extreme case, of course, was Garry Winogrand who was an obsessive,
compulsive shooter, leaving behind at his death 3,000 exposed but still undeveloped films.
But even here there was a structure beneath the chaotic surface. I stayed with Winogrand
in Venice Beach a couple of years before his death. We went shooting together along the
beach front. He was using, as always, his Leica fitted with a 28mm lens and firing it like
a machine-gun. Over coffee he talked about a book project he had been offered. I asked
what he would be shooting. He said he would extract something from his files as he
always worked on many projects at the same time he thought he might have enough
on airports as he spent a lot of time in them. I was fascinated to fi nd so much structure
in the working method of someone whom we are told was so unstructured. But perhaps
photographers talk in a more open manner to other photographers they trust?
He was so very aggressive whereas many photographers of people, such as yourself, tend
towards shyness. Even if you do not think this issue of quantity can be, well, quantified, it
would be helpful to provide a clue to your own way of working, if only to show that good
photographs happen rarely.
As a general guide I would guess that for a seven-picture essay I would shoot 20 to 30
cassettes of 36-exposure 35mm film. A single, exhibition-quality image probably occurs
every, say, 100 films. For what it is worth.
Now back to shyness We have emphasized that the photographer must have a sustained
curiosity about the subject. This poses no problems for the shy photographer if the subject in
which he/she is curious happens to be, say, the intricate forms of plants. However, it would seem
that a major problem has been created if the shy person is particularly and intensely curious
about the lives of other people, especially strangers.
This issue arises far more frequently than others might suspect. It makes sense, however,
that shy people are curious about other lives because they are always aware of their fear
and anxious to overcome it by reaching out to strangers. When fear stops them, they are
even more sensitive about their shyness.
I believe the camera is about solutions, not problems. The camera allows me to interact
with strangers because it provides two services: one, it provides a shield, something to hide
behind, so that when I look through the viewfinder I am interacting with an image, not
real people; two, it provides an excuse for being in that situation, if someone approached
me and asked: What are you doing?
For example, if I walked into a ballroom dance competition out of sheer curiosity but
without a camera, undoubtedly I would feel uncomfortable. I would not know what was
going on: I would not know anyone there. I would be afraid that someone would approach
me and, in all innocent disregard for my shyness, ask what I was doing. Quite possibly
my reaction would be inadequacy, a feeling of being out of place and isolated so I might
become defensive and leave, thinking: how stupid it all is. But what I am actually
admitting is that I have an unreasonable fear of strangers. All this changes with the
camera in my hand.
It gives me both an invisibility cloak and an excuse for intruding into other lives. Im
a photographer is an open-sesame to places and people I would otherwise avoid. In
reality, of course, you soon discover by experience that if you are genuinely interested
in whats going on, then people become extremely friendly. One of the easiest ways to
overcome shyness is to be a photographer.
We, as human beings, tend to deride and sneer at those things which are outside our everyday
experience. I guess it is the ancient tribal law: those outside our own clan, who behave
differently, are the enemy. My hunch is that reportage photographers become very tolerant
even humanistic because of their broad range of experiences with people of different
interest, cultures, social backgrounds and political viewpoints. Photographic familiarity does
not breed contempt, but forbearance.
It does not have to be based in photography. I think you could achieve this level of
understanding without a camera. It would depend on your personality. The mere fact that
you entered a different activity or life-style, displayed genuine non-judgmental curiosity
about it, listened with sympathy even if you made it clear that your own opinions would
not be swayed then my guess is that you would quickly find the participants a fascinating
group. My shyness, however, would preclude me from such participation.
The camera is my entrance-ticket. It is also my way of clarifying (for myself) what is going
on. Finally, it is a way of passing on this new-found experience to others.
I suspect many, many reportage photographers are shy personality types. It would be an
interesting research project to discover if people-photographers make up a higher percentage
of shy persons than occur in the general population. I can think of many heavily-funded
projects which are less interesting! By the way, there is a very funny book called The Shy
Photographer
Never heard of it.
No matter it is a novel and not relevant to this discussion. But what is relevant, in my opinion,
is that I gravitated towards photography in my early years, in spite of the peer pressure to enter
a more socially acceptable career, because of the personae of the photographers I met.
As a group, they seemed to me to be the most interesting worth emulating type of
human being; curious, tolerant, self-motivated, with broad-ranging interests. I thought: if
photography produces people like this then it must be a very important field, rich with potential.
I have not been disappointed.
CAMERAS, SHOES
AND OTHER ESSENTIALS
Some day our brains will catch up with our instruments,

our wisdom with our knowledge,
our purpose with our powers.
Then at last we shall behave like human beings.
Will Durant
Bill Jay: Theres a Zen saying which was often and earnestly quoted when
photographers were discussing Minor White and his ilk during the 1960s. It goes
something like this: on first encounter a rock is just a rock; on further examination
a rock is not a rock; with full understanding, a rock is again a rock. Im probably
trivializing a profound thought which I do not understand, but the quotation reminds
me of photographers and cameras. Beginning photographers are obsessed with
equipment but there comes a stage when they deny that cameras have any
relevance. Yet the best photographers do seem to spend a lot of time talking
about cameras again.
David Hurn: Of course. It is important to have the right equipment for

the purpose at hand and which is compatible with your own personality. It
is possible to insert a screw with a hammer but the job is a lot more efficient
with a screwdriver, preferably a power-driver!
A photographer in the middle-phase dismissive of the camera tends to feel

such talk of equipment gives the impression that he/she is less artistic: artists
dont talk about paint or brushes. In fact, they do. Just recently I was fascinated
to overhear two respected watercolor painters heatedly discussing pure white
sables versus synthetic brushes.
It makes sense. Musicians discuss instruments; writers discuss word

processors, as Im sure they once discussed types of goose quill; sculptors
discuss brands of chisel and methods of welding; and so on. If you aspire to
CAMERAS, SHOES AND OTHER ESSENTIALS 63
do anything as well as it is possible to achieve, then the tool, instrument or, in our case, the
camera, must contribute to, or at least not interfere with, the final product.
I know that your primary camera is, and always has been, the quick, light, discreet, 35mm
type, but that later in life you have also started to use both a 4 x 5 inch view camera and
a specially adapted medium-format camera. What are the factors which determine the
choice of equipment?
I choose the right tool for the job. In music different instruments were introduced and have
been improved for their unique characteristics. So have cameras. To take a simple extreme:
the 35mm format allows for light, maneuverable cameras, but it is a small negative with
the attendant technical deficiencies. The view camera on a tripod is static, but it produces
a large negative. However hard you try you can never produce the tonal range, sharpness
and sheer image smoothness of the, say, 4 x 5 inch negative with a 35mm camera. It seems
silly to spend so much time and effort, as many photographers do, attempting to wring
large-format quality from a 35mm negative. On the other hand, it is just as masochistic to
try to cover a quickly unfolding event with a view camera.
Conversely, it is sheer laziness to use a 35mm camera for everything just because the outfit is
lighter and more convenient to carry. It is a pity that practically every student of photography
buys a 35mm slr camera at the beginning of his/her course work in the presumption that this will
do for everything they are likely to encounter. Although it is a versatile instrument, it is unlikely
to be the ideal choice for everyone. I wish they had received advice before spending so
much money on a camera which may be incompatible with their own personality and subject
matter interests. Of course I am reluctant to suggest they have wasted money and should
buy another, more suitable, camera.
Ideally, as you say, each photographer would list the subjects in which they have intense
curiosity, and analyze how these subjects should be photographed, keeping in mind the
individuals personality, and only then select the ideal tool for the job. In practice, this does
not lead to a succession of different cameras and formats. Personality is not that flexible or
changeable. And personality is what will determine, to a large extent, the choice of certain
subjects and ways of working over others. My advice is to stick to one camera and format
for a considerable period of time, if only to become so completely familiar with it that you
do not need to consciously think about its controls.
That is certainly true in your case. You used the 35mm camera for 40 years before you found it
necessary to learn how to load a sheet of film in a dark slide!
I expanded my equipment for two reasons. As I said, the personality does not tend
to change very much but the photographers body does not cooperate. It gets older.
Unfortunately this fact leads to a slowing down, a failing of the eyes, a need for less
strenuous activity, perhaps a desire to contemplate a little more before acting. I am sure
the specifics of aging are different for each individual but the general pattern is definitely
reduced physical activity no matter how active the mind. You do not see many war
photographers in their 50s. In my case, a frenetic darting about cannot be sustained to the
same degree and I need periods of quieter, gentler activity. I am sure this is one reason
why I am so enjoying the use of larger format cameras.
The main reason for the new formats, however, was the demands of a major project which
I had been planning for many years and which is now under way
I am interrupting you because I want to explain this project and then ask you to comment
on each section with special reference to the camera format employed. I cannot think of
another major exhibition where the distinctly different groupings of images relied so heavily
on the choice of equipment
I will interrupt you because I would prefer the horse to come before the cart. The picture
categories, once analyzed, dictated a particular choice of equipment
Fair comment. Back to this huge project you have been photographing Wales almost as long
as I have known you. As time went by, you began to see it as a major exhibition with three distinct
sections. You made a proposal to the National Museum of Wales and this institution was so
impressed with the plan that it decided to make the exhibition the centerpiece of its millennium
celebration in 1999. Tell us the thinking behind each section.
The idea for the exhibition is to clarify for myself What is Culture? in other
words, Welsh culture. Wales is a very small country and photographing there has some
disadvantages when I am traveling abroad and I tell people that I am photographing
Wales they often respond, in all seriousness, with Also dolphins? but also considerable
advantages. I know every road and have contacts in every area. I feel I know my subject.
I divided the project into three sections, as you stated: 1.) Way of Living 2.) Then and
Now 3.) Portraits.
Way of Living
Culture as a word always provokes polarized opinions. I wanted to use this section to
clarify and explain this word to myself. It seemed to me that the culture of a country
largely springs from its work base. If that is true then Wales is undergoing a more sudden
and violent cultural change than any other country of which I am aware. Until recently
the work-force of Wales was predominantly employed in heavy industry coal and steel.
That is no longer true. For example, a few years ago there were more than 100 coal mines in
Wales; today there is one. The new work base is in such clean industries such as high-tech
laboratories, heritage parks and tourism. This section, therefore, is divided into two parts:
the Wales of heavy industry and the Wales of sterile labs. As I had already completed the
first part then the second part should be compatible in order more accurately to show the
contrast between the past and present. All these images have been shot with the 35mm
camera. They are reportage in nature.
Then and Now

Then and Now is a section which will show the changes in the Welsh landscape over the
past 100 years. To achieve this aim I decided to select 100 Victorian albumen prints of
historical views from the National Library of Wales and to rephotograph each view from
exactly the same location today. My feeling was that by comparing the original scene with
the present view then unique and complex perspectives are gained about both the past and
the present. In this case I wanted to duplicate the original method of working, as much as
possible with modern materials, and it seemed appropriate to use a large-format camera.
This allowed me to spend a good deal of time examining the image on the ground-glass
screen and making sure the viewpoint was precisely correct. I had never before used a
view camera but I had long admired the images produced by landscapist Mark Klett. So, I
spent a week or two with him, absorbing everything he did to achieve his results. Besides
being a wonderful photographer he is a superlative technician with a fanatical eye to detail
so I knew that if I duplicated his methods and did not achieve the same end quality then
I would have no excuses, that the fault must be mine.
In general, the large-format camera on a tripod is unsurpassed for fine detail and
unparalleled for tonal range but it demands a contemplative mind-set. It was very useful
for me in that the slow operation forced me to think like the 19th century workers and I
began to understand why they had chosen a certain point of view.
Portraits
This section was the result of the Welsh weather, which is so changeable you can experience
four seasons in one day! It was a hopeless task to try to duplicate the exact lighting of the
scene for the Then and Now landscapes. The best I could do was to shoot at the same time
of the year and wait around for long hours until the lighting was adequate. During these
tedious waits it occurred to me that I could utilize the time to shoot a series of portraits,
a bit like August Sanders collection of archetypal Germans in the first decades of the
century. I liked the idea of making rather formal portraits of both the archetypal Welsh
and the new Welsh, the recent immigrants.
For this section I decided I needed a camera that was rugged enough to throw in the
back of the vehicle on these Then and Now trips, which produced superlative quality when
used on a tripod but which was faster to set up and use on passing people than the view
camera. This led me to the medium-format, 2-inch square camera. A British photographer
whose views I respect, Martin Parr, suggested I use the Rolleiflex, a twin-lens reflex. After
a good deal of asking around I knew I wanted a post-1962 camera with a f3.5 Planar lens
and I eventually found one. The problem was that I could not focus the camera due
to my spectacles and the very dim image on the ground-glass screen. Another friend,
camera-maker Jack Tate, came to the rescue. He suggested adapting a Hasselblad prism
viewfinder to the Rolleiflex body, which solved both problems in that the screen is very
bright and it incorporates a variable diopter lens to compensate for different eyesight
problems. So a little perseverance produced the ideal tool for this particular need.
But these choices of camera are exceptions selected for very specific needs whereas the
vast majority of your images have been taken with the 35mm format.
Only because it is the most appropriate tool for the type of picture I am interested in, and
for my own personality. I like photographing people who are generally unaware of my
presence and I need to remain discreet, an observer of the event, not a participant. The
miniature camera was designed to be fast in action and its small size allows me to blend
in. This just happens to be the way I prefer working. Other photographers have their own
methods. Edward Weston worked with an 8 x 10 inch camera, taking hours to achieve
one image with a technique which I would find unacceptable, yet his pictures are
wonderful. I cannot tolerate the school of photography which states to the subject: stand
there and stare into the camera, but then Paul Strand did exactly that and produced
significant, beautiful pictures.
Every photographer should analyze his/her needs both photographic and personal
and list the characteristics of the camera which best suits them. For me, the top
requirement is a very quiet shutter, and all other controls or features are secondary
considerations.
You are not partisan when it comes to brand names?
To a degree. To a small degree. It is interesting to compare the opinions of the most

respected photographers. Although there is rarely unanimity in choice of camera or lens,
they do have practical experience in such characteristics as ruggedness, reliability, ease of
use in unusual circumstances, and so on. But, no, the particular manufacturer or model
is not that important. Every maker has spent millions on research and development, and
computer design of lenses, which means that most brands are going to perform well and
produce sharp images. If you want to name names for most of my photographic career
I used Leicas, for their reliability and quality of optics, but more importantly because of
their very quiet shutters. I also like the direct viewfinders of rangefinder-type cameras.
I feel as though I am looking directly at the subject, not at an image on a ground-glass
screen as is the case with the single-lens reflex.
Unfortunately, as I grew older and needed glasses I could not see the complete frame
inside the Leicas viewfi nder so I switched to slrs. In fact I use the cheapest, amateur
model in the Canon line for one reason only: it is the quietest in operation. I certainly do
not need all the bells and whistles even on this camera. It only has one drawback in that
its instruction book, under Precautions!, says: This camera is not resistant to water and
should not be used outdoors in snow or rain, which could pose a problem in that Wales is
a notoriously rainy country. So I carry a second body, a top-of-the-line professional model,
for the times when I am shooting in wet weather.
I remember when we would go out shooting pictures together and you would sling a Leica over
your shoulder with a jacket worn on top of it. The camera could not slip off, was completely
hidden from view, yet it could be slipped out for a quick series of shots and then was tucked away
out of sight before the subjects knew you had been photographing.
It is true that the flat Leica-type of camera allowed a greater degree of concealment
compared to the bulky slr-type. In practice the more visible slr does not seem as much
of a liability as I would have thought. Perhaps because the camera is so ubiquitous at

most of the events I photograph
More important than the choice of camera is the ease and fluency with which you use it. A
good exercise is to sit in a cafe and observe the other patrons. Imagine your eye could be
disembodied and float around in space. In a perfect world, where would you position
this eye in space for the ideal arrangement of shapes? Then blink at the exact moment
when the flux of motion congeals into a perfect picture. This is excellent training and
can be practiced in many situations. But you soon discover, if you actually attempted
these pictures with a camera at your face, then the power of observation is diminished
and that fine details, tiny moments are more difficult to observe. The viewfinder gets
in the way.
You can overcome this problem, to some degree, by experience, by shooting a lot of
pictures. You learn how to judge the exact field of view of the lens so that you move
instinctively into the right distance from the subject and you learn how to operate the
cameras controls without conscious thought. All the technical decisions in photography
should be so thoughtless that the act of shooting pictures is solely concentrated on the
image in the viewfinder.
Which takes a great deal of practice
Of course. You do not attend a concert and expect the pianist to search for the correct keys!
There has been so much practice prior to the performance that hitting the right notes is
instinctive. Believe me, thats a lot, lot more difficult than setting a cameras controls.
You can learn all you need to know about the technical side of photography in three
days, but it takes constant practice to make it so instinctive that you are in the right
position, at the right moment, with the right exposure and focus, without any thought
about equipment or technique.
We are photographers. The question one must ask oneself is, am I translating what I
see in visual terms as well as is possible? In other words, to be able to communicate the
communicator must know his craft, both technical and organizational. These are the
mechanisms that help him communicate clearly. The photographer who works so clumsily
at what he is trying to say that he cannot get it said, however sincere he may be, is at best
still an apprentice; at worst, I am afraid, a fraud. There is a constant cry for the new. Some
complain of the same old subject matter. They see the answer as a new style or a change of
equipment: a bigger flash, a faster motor. History shows us that it is the visually simple that
lasts, and that the simple always appears to have an ease of execution. I say appears as I
am sure that apparent ease is the most difficult of all things to achieve.
It reminds me of a remark by Josef Koudelka who was shooting pictures around my cabin.
I couldnt understand what he was seeing, as the images seemed to have no connection
with his known work. He said: I have to shoot three cassettes of film a day, even when not
photographing, in order to keep the eye in practice. That made sense. An athlete has to train
every day although the actual event occurs only occasionally.
What we are talking about is a special level of commitment. Most photographers do not
have it. Thats fine. They can still enjoy the thrill of hunting down and snatching pictures.
It is a rewarding, satisfying hobby. I include people who are quasi-professionals. But
photography is no different from any other profession. In order to operate at the very
highest levels, it demands dedicated effort, tenacity and time.
We all know of what I call the talk-caring photographers who are always involved
working on an indefinable, never-finished project and who produce pictures that have
no definable purpose.
The I want to do it, inspirational phase of creativeness must be joined with the tough,
rational working out and development of the inspiration. The latter relies on plain hard
work. Many of us have awoken in the middle of the night with a flash of inspiration about
some book we would like to write. But the difference between the inspiration and the final
product is, in a paraphrase of Dostoevsky:
an awful lot of hard work,

an awful lot of discipline,
an awful lot of training,
an awful lot of finger exercises, and a lot of throwing away of first drafts.
When I was photographing Graham Greene, whom I have already mentioned, he would
write every morning, and then throw it away in the afternoon. He was not writing for a
purpose but just practicing. Incidentally, he also stated that he never started writing a
novel until the publisher had given him a title! I do not know if he was being facetious.
He was a humorous man. Still, I can believe it.
So can I. Bill Brandt once rather shocked my youthful sensibilities when he told me that he
never picked up a camera unless he was on assignment. It has taken a long, long time to
understand what he meant.
It is that idea of having a clearly defined purpose for the pictures, rather than walking the
streets with a vague idea of this is what a photographer does.
We are getting away from the photographers tools.
Not really. A photographer may not just walk the streets but he/she does do a lot of
walking, with a purpose, so the most important piece of equipment after the camera is a
good pair of shoes. A writer can do a lot of work from a hotel room but a photographer
has to be there, so he/she is in for a hell of a lot of hiking.
This is a most important consideration. The shoes must be rugged, durable, suitable for all
terrain and weather, so comfortable that they can be walked in all day without discomfort,
yet smart enough that the one pair can be worn with a suit to a posh event as well as
through the mud at a horse show, or wherever.
When photographers get together my guess is that a comparison of shoes is an inevitable

topic!
And so is clothing in general
This is particularly true if, like me, you need to be inconspicuous in a wide range of
situations. I might travel for three months at a time so I think very carefully about what to
carry, for minimum weight and maximum usefulness. I need everything for an extended
trip to fit into an underseat airline carry-on bag, and all my equipment must fit in
one camera holdall. Both bags are carried with me at all times. The holdall is not my
working camera bag but is used just to transport the equipment. The clothes bag is
a convertible pack which can be carried in the hand like a suitcase or, on unzipping
straps, as a backpack.
Now I know exactly what to pack. I wear a suit and pack another. The trick is then to
pack for layering loose clothing that can be added if it is cold and subtracted if it is
hot. The first layer is an under-vest made of one of the new artificial fibers which wicks
moisture and perspiration from the body. The vest can be used on its own if the location is
particularly hot. I carry two of these vests and two others of similar but heavier material.
Then I add five shirts, various socks and underwear, all of which, including the suits, can
be hand- or machine-washed in two hours.
The choice of suits is important. They have to be light, yet warm, and smart enough to
wear at a cocktail reception. Jeans are comfortable and rugged but far too casual for some
events. Not only would they make you conspicuous but it is just plain rude to be so casual
when others are in dinner jackets. For that reason I always pack at least one white shirt
and a tie. It is better to be slightly over-dressed than too scruffy.
I reiterate: this is not a trivial issue. It is a measure of professionalism, how sincere you are
in doing the job as well as you possibly can.
Another measure of professionalism in this and every other field is knowing who to contact for
specific information and help, especially when away from home.
Most photographers, particularly those who love to travel, collect names, addresses,
and telephone numbers in great profusion. These are contacts and constitute one of the
photographers most precious possessions. The problem with the address book is that it is
bulky, and prone to wearing out, loss or theft. My answer is the electronic organizer. Buy
one which allows you to have a RAM card back-up. In my paranoia I always carry two
cards one in my wallet and one to leave in my hotel room or wherever is my base. In
addition, I download the data into my Macintosh computer before I leave home. A true
case of belt, braces and a piece of string! If the organizer is stolen or lost then you have to
buy a new one, but the relief of slotting in the ram card and seeing all the irreplaceable
information come flooding back is worth the money. A word of warning: technology
moves so fast that there is no guarantee of long-term compatibility. The last organizer I
owned stood me in good stead for six years. When it was finally stolen, the new model
would not accept my back-up cards.
One other item which I consider essential when traveling is a small short-wave radio.
There are several on the market which enable me to pick up everything broadcast around
the world especially the BBC World Service!
Talking about non-photographic pieces of equipment reminds me to ask you a question about
note-taking. I would have thought, with your dyslexia, that a mini-cassette tape-recorder would
have been an essential item in the camera bag.
One of the hard lessons that a photographer learns through experience is that virtually all
pictures demand a caption. Indeed, photographic libraries, like Magnum, will not place
a picture into the files without the basic Who-What-Where-Why on the back of the print.
Even most exhibitions would be better served by having this information available. And,
as you say, the most obvious way to collect and store information while traveling is the
small tape-recorder. I must confess, however, that although I have owned several for this
purpose not one of them has been used in practice. I am not sure of the reason. I find
something intimidating about them. My solution is to keep details in small notebooks,
inserted into a leather cover, a solution I learned from you. My advice, no matter what
system you use, is to write your notes on the spot, or as soon as you have a spare minute. I
and everyone else I know find it impossible to recall accurate details at a later date.
So lets move on to another type of containment, the inevitable issue of the ideal camera
bag
My own fantasy is that the bag should be made of some elastic-like material which
continuously expands with the addition of new equipment and shrinks to minuscule
size as the equipment is taken out. As far as I know it has not been discovered, but how
I wish The reality is that photographers experiment with various bags and probably
own several, depending on the needs of the project. But the quest continues. I work out
of two camera bags, both small and of the same type, one on each shoulder. The main
reason why so many photographers suffer from bad backs is not so much the weight
but the tensing of the opposite shoulder when carrying anything on the other one. This
is alleviated by carrying a bag on each shoulder as a kind of balance, evening out the
pressure. I use both bags whenever possible and it has made a difference. Sebastio
Salgado uses two bags for the same reason but in his case the bags are of beautiful
hand-made leather!
You want/need to be unobtrusive yet you are very distinctive among reportage photographers in
that you do not sport the photographers unique fashion statement, the multi-pocketed vest.
For that very reason: Im trying not to be instantly identified as a photographer.
I am sure the vest is very practical where you need lots of pockets for accessories and there
is no necessity to blend in with the people you are photographing, such as for hard news,
nature or landscapes, and so on. For my type of discreet, people-images the last thing I
need is a big sign around my neck proclaiming: Im a photographer, for the same reason
I do not use a camera shaped like a Mickey Mouse mask or wear funny hats! Although I
presume there are situations where even these would blend in
On that fashion highlight we will pause, in order for me to quote the immortal words of Monty
Python, And now for something completely different
THE FUTURE
OF PHOTOGRAPHY
Things are getting faster and faster and stranger and stranger and
its almost comforting to think that some sort of crystal moment will arrive
and a new order will snap out and suddenly everything will be different.
William Gibson
Bill Jay: We have often remarked to each other, you and I, that on an
increasing number of occasions in our various travels and professional
encounters we are asked: what is the future of documentary (reportage)
photography?
David Hurn: The people who ask these questions seem to fall into
two groups: academics who are interested in philosophy and linguistics
and who, I suspect, are questioning the truth value of this genre of
photography; and those interested in the advances of science, and ease
of manipulation through digitalization, and the effect this will have on
the use, or abuse, of pictures after they have been taken. My opinion is
that the future of documentary photography is directly linked to the
question of morality.
I want to return to the issues of truth and electronic imagery, but first, tell us what
you mean by photographic morality, as a foundation for these later issues.
Morality means nothing more than doing what is unselfish, helpful, kind,
decent, and doing it with a reasonable expectation that in the long run, as
well as in the short, we will not be sorry for what we have done. It means
we protect our subject matter when we shoot. It means we do not lie about
or abuse it in order to increase our chances of being published. It means we
do not lie about or abuse it to gain status for ourselves in the gallery or fine
art world. Now this moral rectitude is particularly difficult to maintain if
we live in countries in which the opposite is rewarded, in which escapist
models and ethical evasiveness are rampant. Without compromise we
must attempt to present our inspiration, our representation, in a way
THE FUTURE OF PHOTOGRAPHY 73
that makes it credible and vivid to our audience. Not only information to the intellect,
but feelings to the emotions. But sincerity is not enough. Very few people who take
photographs are visual. They do not see. They record but thats not seeing. Its
very hard to see.
The issue here is a fundamental rift between photographers: those who assert that the medium
is open to endless manipulations in order to satisfy the needs of the creative artist, and those
who believe that the cameras unique ability to show what things look like is best explored
with a direct, straight technique and that it is the flux of life which is ever-changing in
front of the camera, that it is each photographers unique life which constantly presents
new visual challenges.
We live in a world that changes more rapidly now than it ever did before. To be a
photographer in a world which changes perpetually we must be comfortable with change
and to be able to adapt our views when confronted with new truths. We must not be
blinkered by ingrained prejudices. We must be willing to explore many aspects of life
and follow wherever the flow takes us. Photography reflects true life and life changes.
People forget the ever-recurring problems and continually need reminding. To quote the
author, John Gardner: Insofar as literature is a telling of new stories, literature has been
exhausted for centuries but insofar as literature tells archetypal stories in an attempt to
understand once more their truth to translate their wisdom for another generation
literature will be exhausted only when we all, in our foolish arrogance, abandon it.
That is also true for photography.
The future of reportage photography, in your view, is not dependent on linguistics or technology
but on the instant need of some individuals who might be photographers to confront new
truths in their lives, and to confront them merrily.
Yes. Those individuals have no fear or shame in being identified with a willingness to
fight for the right to live in a decent dare I say it an honest world. The future relies
on the individual intellectual integrity of the people actively involved. It does not rely on
passive analysis or on fringe groups. If people wish to deliberately lie and distort that is
their conscious choice. The future of reportage photography lies with photographers and
with people who publish, exhibit and collect photography. They can make choices.
I believe that in a society in which every individual opinion counts, photography at its best
has a unique ability to instruct; to help make alternatives intellectually and emotionally
clear; to spotlight falsehood, to spotlight insincerity, to spotlight foolishness, to bring
people together, to break down barriers of prejudice and ignorance and show ideals worth
pursuing. We should trust the peculiarities of our medium. And if we are truly curious or
fascinated or profoundly interested in our subjects then we are less tempted to interfere, to
control, to change, to improve. We have respect for the event, we do not wish to influence
or alter it. To the extent that we know that photography is not perfect, to the extent that it
is possible for us to be non-intrusive, non-demanding, non-hoping, non-improving, to that
extent this subjective activity achieves a particular kind of objectivity.
If we are realistically aware that this love, this involvement, brings with it a certain kind of
blindness, I feel certain it also produces a certain kind of truth.
I love those phrases, a certain kind of truth, a particular kind of objectivity. They imply that
there is a not-knowing which is valuable. One of my teachers was the philosopher-poet-artist
Michel Butor who once told me that truth was like a photograph in which thousands of different
shades from black to white, and including both extremes, were necessary for full revelation. But,
of course, most people in this day and age insist the truth is black, or white, and deny the beauty
of the whole. I often think of Butors words when I hear my colleagues defining words like truth,
reality, and meaning in an academic setting.
Whole photographic departments are now engaged in defining things. Not too many
pictures are taken.
To quote Robert Adams again: Philosophy can forsake too easily the details of experience
many writers and painters have demonstrated that thinking long about what art is or ought
to be ruins the power to write or paint. I think that is true for photographers.
If I am not careful I suppose I/we might now have trouble with the word truth. Linguistics
games can go on forever. Wittgenstein is often quoted as implying that truth does not
exist but, on checking, what he did seem to say was that certain forms of truth which do
exist are philosophically inexpressible.
Perhaps I will be seen as an anti-academic, which I am not. It is the seeming total

dominance of academia by slovenly academics that is objectionable. They destroy young
people of potential who might enjoy nosing in other peoples business. Anyway, in my
experience, the photography academics do not know what they are talking about, even if
it were relevant. I was discussing this frustration of mine with the chair of a university
philosophy department when she stated that most academics in photography of her
acquaintance would not even pass the interview to become a beginning student on a
rigorous philosophy course!
Let us quickly admit that the finest photographers out there in the world are not averse to
conversation or ideas
No, indeed. I recently spent a memorable evening in London. It started with a telephone
call on a Sunday night. A photographer friend was going to be in London for the evening
of the next day. We arranged to meet. The situation snowballed. I made two quick calls so
that she would be surprised by two more friends. I took a train from Wales on the Monday
afternoon, looking forward to a grand meal with my seldom seem colleague. On arrival
an added joy was that three others were also in town. The grapevine had functioned. A
picture editor and an editor joined in, and we were now nine. For three hours, over dinner,
we talked photography. Not the language of academics, or of photographers who pay
attention to academics a language of seldom used words and full of fine distinctions that
only non-photographers seem to think profound. No, we talked of the subject matter we
were interested in and the individual way we each dealt with the problems incurred.
We talked of the penalties of actually living with the homeless. Of surviving while
marching with the starving. Of the traditions and preparation of the Mummers Parade in
Philadelphia. Of the concept of loneliness. Of a Popes visit and the links to the political
situation in the surrounding countries. Of the chorus of the Welsh National Opera and the
effect on one of standing four feet from 42 singers in full voice. Of what is culture. There
was even talk of the problems of picture editors surprisingly, sometimes our friends. We
talked of various magazines and how they could help us and us them. Of whether a subject
warranted an exhibition or even a book. Essentially, we discussed how can we communicate
in a real world and stop too much distorting of what we had to say.
I slipped in the question, What is the future of documentary photography? I sensed

that they had a relaxed understanding of the question. They did not assume negative
connotations. They did not contemplate linguistic traps. If there was a problem, they saw
it as a problem of how to deal with too many ideas, and the clarification of those ideas
of not enough time to do what one wants thoroughly and of the personal problems
of getting older (mainly bad backs).
Ah, the bad back, again! I have been waiting all my professional life to read a book which
mentions the most frequent and commonly talked-about hazard of the photographic profession.
And now it has, at last, happened and the book in which bad back appears is ours.
How satisfying! I will mention, in passing and for the edification of the reader, that David,
whenever he visits me, sleeps on a thin foam rubber pad on the floor with a specially
designed neck pillow.
From low-tech to high-tech, lets move into another aspect of the future: electronic imagery. The
two areas which I would like to discuss are the transfer of existing images to electronic exhibitions
and the ease of manipulation and your reaction to new images afforded by digitalization.
You are asking me to predict the future. The advice in this book is based on a lifetime
of experiences and, by definition, I have no experiences of the future. But I would agree
with the astronomer/futurist Arthur C. Clarke that The future isnt what it used to be.
Changes are occuring at such a rapid pace that whatever we discuss on this topic, you can
be sure that there will be new questions, new opportunities and new problems by
the time this book needs a new edition.
True, but some factors which are shaping the future of our field are already in place, such as
web sites for the display of electronic exhibitions. It is estimated that the web will have 100 billion
pages by the year 2005. Thats 16 pages for every man, woman and child alive on the planet.
Photographers are already taking advantage of this technology to produce displays of their
images. It seems that every student is encouraged and taught how to produce their own web
sites before they have anything of value to put on it.
Surely this is a new opportunity for photographers of every level to reach a wider audience.
Perhaps for some but I am a little skeptical that these sites will ever fulfill the average
photographers dream of quick and wide acclaim.
High-profile photographers, such as Sebastiao Salgado and Annie Liebovitz, have very
professional, and therefore expensive, web sites devoted to their work and can expect huge
numbers of visitors. The Selgado site averaged 100,000 hits per week for the first six weeks
after its launch. The Liebovitz site was even more popular.
But these are famous names whose images are popular whether in exhibitions, books
or web sites.
By contrast, the average photographer, without a famous name, who has created his or
her own web site, is unlikely to receive any more visitors to it than would an exhibition
of the prints hanging in a local gallery. And that is not many. These poorly conceived and
designed amateur web sites, swamped by billions of others, are unlikely to be found by
chance, and few people, apart from friends and acquaintances, will search the web under
an unknown photographers name. Therefore the site will languish, unvisited, in a tiny
backwater of the vast web ocean.
For the average photographer the home-grown web site is not the miraculous answer to
the problem of reaching a wider audience.
Let us attempt to reach some conclusions about web exhibitions, based on what you have said. A
photographer interested in using the web to reach an audience should:
a) keep in mind the intrinsic characteristics of the web before planning the exhibition. The
computer screen is not an original print and its relatively poor definition precludes images which
rely for their merit on high definition and subtle tones.
b) collaborate with the best web designer you can find or afford. The top photographers
have collaborated with very professional specialists. This makes it even more important that
your site is of a very high standard.
c) invest in a professional service which regularly makes sure that your site is updated and linked to
major search engines. There is no point in creating a site if no one can find it.
d) specialize. If your images offer a clear difference from other sites it is more likely to
be accessed.
The last point is very important. Unfortunate as it is for the ego-driven, your name, even
with artist/photographer attached, is not going to attract visitors to your site. Nor is a
generic category such as landscapes, portraits, or travel. For these topics a potential
buyer or viewer is far more likely to go directly to one of the major image banks. The
more specific and unusual your topic, the better. Your images are more likely to be
found under precise themes, such as pencils, peppers or tide pools. These are not
recommendations, merely examples!
Again, this is why it is so important to consult a web professional who knows how
to brand your images for the search engines through which potential visitors will
find your images.
This is all good advice for photographers who are interested in personal exhibitions on the web,
with the hope that someone will inquire about acquiring an original print for reproduction or
exhibition. But the situation is far more complicated if the actual digital images are intended
for marketing and publication.
In this case, the individual is in direct competition with stock agencies such as Corbis and
Getty Images which between them have over one million images online. These agencies
have bought up scores of archives, museum collections, news services as well as the life
work of thousands of photographers. Getty Images alone has invested more than $30
million in the past few years on electronic infrastructure, scanning and keywording.
Most scan sizes for these online images seem to be around 50 megabytes each. The sites
are run by very experienced professionals, many of them hired from well-respected print
agencies. It is difficult to see how the average photographers web site can compete in
the arena, given the huge costs involved in setting up the site, scanning at very high
resolutions, maintaining the site and its continual updating, especially as Corbis and Getty
Images charge relatively little for the use of their images.
I think the important point is that every form of presentation newspaper, magazine, book,
exhibition, and all the variations within each medium has its own intrinsic demands.
Now we must add the web to the list with its own needs. But, so far, photographers have
not analyzed the nature of those needs, and we have a plethora of web displays which are
merely scattered single images with no purpose, idea, linking theme, or cohesion. That is
not, in my opinion, the best way to utilize the brand new means of presentation.
But you are not suggesting the special demands of web exhibitions are beyond photographys
means, or that just because present displays are unsatisfactory they cannot be successful
Not at all. Indeed, I would go further. It is the special demands which can help us define
what constitutes a successful electronic exhibition. The very limits or weaknesses can
lead to an understanding of the strengths. Photographers have always excelled at working
within narrow briefs or controlled directions.
Not only photographers: theres the wonderful story of an 18th century king, George
II, who commissioned a composer to produce an orchestral suite under the following
conditions: it had to last as long as it took for a boat to travel up the river Thames from
Hampton Court to Windsor Castle; the number of musicians was limited to the boats
capacity; the music must be loud enough to be heard by people on the river bank, and so
on. Thats a pretty tight brief. Indeed, at a rehearsal the boat sank, and the piece had to
be rewritten for fewer musicians. The result was George Frideric Handels Water Music,
which is still popular today.
By the way, the fine British film, The Madness of King George III, came to America and
the distributors had to omit the III because of concerns about people assuming they had
missed Parts I and II. That was merely a touch of levity to show we have a sense of humor!
Back to the issue
There are all those painters of the past whose patrons, whether the church or princes, dictated not
only the contents of the work but also exactly where it should appear, often an awkwardly
shaped area of wall or ceiling, and then determined the length of the contract. There is a
modern myth of the creative artist whose genius only shines when allowed full freedom from all
constraints. In fact, the opposite seems true: a tight brief channels the otherwise free-flowing
talent into a concentrated effort.
My mind is now leaping to the Farm Security Administration how often have I heard the
fallacious notion that the photographers traipsed across the USA doing their own thing. In reality,
Roy Stryker provided each photographer with a very specific shooting script, an official textbook
on the sociology, politics, demographics, and so on, of the area that they were to visit North
America, by J. Russell Smith and made sure that each photographer became a mini-expert in
their assigned subject before he/she was sent into the field. Carl Mydans, one of the neglected
photographers of the F.S.A., tells a great story about this need for preparation and research. He
was assigned by Stryker to go down to the deep South to do a story about cotton. As he was
leaving the office, Stryker casually said to him: I assume you know something about cotton.
Mydans said: No. Stryker told him to put down his camera bag, then he turned to his secretary:
Cancel Carls reservations. Mydans later recalled: We talked all afternoon, then at dinner, and
all night, and when I left the next morning, I knew something about cotton.
I think we have made the point that photographers as well as painters, writers and all
creative people have often produced their best work when working under an exacting
set of conditions, whether self- applied or provided by others. My guess is that the history
of photography abounds with examples which would confirm this idea.
The principle holds true not only during the production of the project but also during
its presentation.
It always takes a while to learn the particular demands, the special characteristics, of the
presentation method. This is not the place to ramble sideways into the history of photographic
exhibitions, except to point out that the typical 19th century exhibition often contained thousands
of images, with no selection process, in a multitude of idiosyncratic sizes and frames, jammed
together up to the highest corners of the ceiling, all competing with flocked wallpaper, gas fittings,
windows, drapes and furniture. Those pictures which would not fit on the walls were dumped in a
heap on a central table. It was not until Frederick Evans began organizing the Salon exhibitions in
the 1890s that photography displays began to receive some consideration in terms of isolation,
spacing and design, and here we have the beginnings of clean, non-distracting walls and
consistency in presentation. It took a long time for the exhibition needs of the photographer to
be developed and refined. A similar long-term process governed the development of the picture
essay in periodicals, and in the special characteristics of, and differences between, the
wall exhibition, magazine layout, picture book, original print portfolio and so on. Suffice
to say that each presentation method with its own internal logic and tight strengths (and
weaknesses) had to evolve into its own special, effective form. And the same will occur to
electronic exhibitions.
Today we need individuals of insight to write the rules of engagement for this new form of
exhibition. It is an exciting challenge. My guess is that photographers and web experts will
collaborate, initially, and define the parameters of the brief which image-makers will then
use to create effective exhibitions specifically for the electronic gallery.
And now we should talk, briefly, about images created electronically with digital cameras. A few
years ago digital cameras were regarded as expensive toys. Today, with plummeting costs, rapid
increases in resolution and an ever-widening choice (there were more than 60 models on the
market at my last count) it is evident that digital cameras are becoming viable alternatives to film
cameras, especially for the amateur. It is estimated by market analysts that by 2005 there will be
more digital cameras in use than film cameras.
There is no doubt that digital cameras are replacing the models using film. But there are a
couple of worms in the bud which spoil my appetite for the new technology.
For the amateur it just means that boxes of uncatalogued, dusty machine-prints will be
replaced by uncatalogued images on some sort of storage device such as compact disks.
Although the space-saving is considerable, the images are no more accessible so not much
has changed. Also, with rapid changes in storage systems and software, who knows if the
disks, or whatever, can be even opened and viewed in a decade or two.
For the serious photographer, the problem is also one of storage. Discounting the very real
problem of ever-changing storage technology and obsolete software, a bigger issue is one
of efficiency. In order to digitally store the equivalent of a 35mm film and contact sheet, the
photographer would need to scan 36 images at 50+ megabytes thats 1,800 megabytes
for every film. The reasonably active photographer would fill up the hard-drive of a
good computer every month. Of course, storage methods will change and become more
convenient. I am merely pointing out the efficiency of the present negative/contact
sheet system.
And to think that as recently as 1981 Bill Gates, CEO of Microsoft, said that 640K [of memory]
ought to be enough for anybody! But back to your point: digital photographers would argue
that they do not need to save every image because one advantage of these cameras is that the
images can be edited in-camera and only the best saved.
For some types of photographers that may be true. But for the documentary/news
photographer such instant editing raises a serious question about the historical record.
Who erases the unwanted images, and on what basis?
Often the photographer is not the best picture editor, and the picture editor will have a bias
about which images to keep/discard depending on the story. Neither the photographer
nor the picture editor is mindful of the historical record at the time the images are in the
camera. Experience shows us that in fifty years time a different editing is often the most
useful. So the edit-as-you-shoot solution to storage problems is not really editing but a
systematic destruction of potentially valuable work.
The strip of negatives/contact sheet is still the most efficient method of storing all
the images; it allows for some sort of authentication of the image because you can see
what was taken prior to, and after, the selected picture and this reveals context, an
important aspect of reality.
Also, the edit-as-you-shoot approach would certainly change the working attitudes of the
photographer.
With film cameras you cannot see what the camera has captured at the moment of shooting.
So the photographer must keep shooting through the event as it unfolds.
With digital cameras the tendency always will be to look at the screen to see if the image is
adequate. Meanwhile, the event might have changed irredeemably. Once the photographer
can instanly check on what was pictured then the chances are that he/she will stop
shooting if the image is a reasonable one. The camera, therefore, has imposed on the
photographer a different, and less efficient, way of working.
It is interesting that so many digital cameras are being marketed with the primary sales appeal
that amateurs can, and therefore will, manipulate the images before storage. At the same
time serious photographers are enthusiastically embracing the digitally manipulated image
and developing a whole new field of art.
At present the manipulated, digitally created images seem to be boring tricks by weak
photographers. But the time is quickly approaching when the digital photographer will be
so skilled and adept at the computers controls that these will be mere tools for the creation
of fantastic (in both senses of the word) images. I am waiting for the Marc Chagall of
electronic imagery to arise. It will be then a pleasure to look at, and appreciate, electronic
imagery of lasting merit, although I am not in the least interested in personally becoming
involved with that type of work.
You have spent your life attempting to master a particular kind of photography. There are many
bands in the photographic spectrum. Because you happen to reside in a particularly intense one,
that does not invalidate any of the others.
No. But I am concerned, if that is not too strong a word, at the blurring or overlapping
of bands, as you put it. That is, where an image purports to be a truthful representation
of reality but in which manipulation has occurred. Of course, photography is replete
throughout its history with tampered reality. The only difference now is that the
manipulation is much easier to achieve and is virtually undetectable.
Yet there seems a very fine dividing line between the alteration of tonal values through
dodging and burning, and the new ability to move an object a few inches to the left for
a better picture.
I am sure that many reportage photographers will take advantage of this new tool for
image re-arrangement. They will be able to achieve what took Gene Smith many, many
hours in the darkroom or, in his case, a re-arrangement of the elements in front of the
camera. I am merely asserting that this ease of manipulation through digital controls after
the image has been made would, for me, reduce the satisfaction of attempting to capture a
perfect image in real life. To some, this might seem masochistic but it is the very difficulty
of the effort which produces the satisfaction.
Remember the Pedro Meyer lecture we attended during which he uttered one sentence
which clarified the issue for me. He said something like, Perfect images are so difficult to
find in reality but now I have a tool for correcting photographys problems.
I remember your outrage! As we left the lecture you were fuming that it is the difficulty in capturing
wonderful images that makes it such a meaningful challenge. But I think you were somehow
outraged that these manipulated images masquerading as documents of reality were being
foisted onto a public who would not know the difference.
You are right, but I want to clarify my remarks. For a photographer to admit that he is
not capable of grappling with the problems which a whole history of photographers have
also tackled and succeeded is not for me to comment on. My frustration was that this
photographer was giving a public lecture to an audience of primarily students and seemed
to be implying that when faced with a problem, take the easy solution. It is the willingness
to tackle and solve the difficult that makes Alex Webb, Gilles Perres, Lee Friedlander,
and others, great photographers. What is the point of a Friedlander photograph if its
components were put together in a machine? If any of these photographers were to decide
in the future to manipulate images in the computer, my guess is they would tackle a new
order of problem and not use it as an easy solution to an old problem.
When the public at large is gaily amending, improving, altering snapshots before they
are stored as the family record, then we have a whole new situation. The public will
not presume that the photographs which surround them in newspapers, magazines,
advertisements, billboards, even television are truthful. The presumption will be
that they have been manipulated.
I agree that we are entering an interesting new era in which the mind-set of the people towards
truth will be based on a pre-Renaissance idea of symbol, magic, ritual. But that is another
topic. Back to the present: it seems that the transition period, from photograph-as-evidence
to photograph-as-lie, which has already begun its inevitable seepage through the culture,
is the time of greatest confusion.
I am not at all convinced the issue is or ever will be quite so problematic as you have said
and written about in various articles.
For example, the written word has always had the same ambiguity. Words can be
massaged, doctored, reassembled and slanted in a myriad of ways. Who can tell if any
statement is true? One way, to answer my own question, is to look at the source of the
words. Do we trust this particular author? Another is to trust the context. If you read an
article in a sensational tabloid you do not expect the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth. You expect to be titillated and entertained with trivia. On the other hand
if you read an article in The Lancet, Nature, or The New England Journal of Medicine, then
you would expect it to be factually accurate. So there is a commercial or marketplace
sorting/sifting process under way.
I think the same is true of photographs; that there will be some contexts which we
will trust more than others.
Heres an area where I disagree; the photograph is a special sort of symbol which is not like
an article of words; by cultural consent we have invested the photograph with a machine-like
relationship to truth to a far greater degree than any other method of communication; that
photographic truthfulness is not dependent on knowing who made the image; and my hunch
is that there are many more gray areas where photographs may or may not be more truthful
than the tabloid/scientific duality. But this book is focused on you so I will leave these arguments
for another time and place.
Whatever the future might hold, I do know one fact: it is a simple problem for me, and
photographers like me, to solve right now. For decades we have stamped the backs of our
prints with a warning not to crop the image. That works. It is very rare for a magazine
to disregard this demand. In the same way, I can stamp my prints: this image must not
be manipulated in any way, including electronically. Most journals which are likely to
publish my pictures will respect my wishes.
Prior to the introduction of the half-tone reproduction process, periodicals often published
wood engravings with the caption: from a photograph by The purpose, of course, was
to assert the accuracy or truthfulness of the scene. It will be interesting to see if todays
magazines will carry the caption: from an unmanipulated photograph if they want to
stress its authenticity.
I expect they will, at least during the transition period.
Will this reduce the markets for unmanipulated images when most periodicals will be changing
to digital illustrations?
Yes but that is to my benefit! When nearly all magazines changed to color the fear among
black-and-white photographers was that there would be fewer outlets for their work. And
that was true. But even though there were fewer magazines publishing black-and-white
work there were even fewer black-and-white photographers remaining. The result was
that the ocean become a pond but that they the black-and-white photographers
were now very big fish!
The same situation developed when Henri Cartier-Bresson insisted on using a Leica by
natural light. Instead of this insistence cutting him out of the field he was suddenly in
great demand because his work was different from the hordes of photographers with large
plate cameras, giant flashbulbs and tons of gear.
I think this is what will happen in the new age of electronic illustration. Those of us
who make straight fiber prints in black and white will have a smaller market but there
will be so few of us to service it.
And the original prints will gain value because of their rarity.
Undoubtedly. When the digital camera/electronic image becomes ubiquitous then the
old-fashioned silver print will have an automatic value which is not true at present. As
a growing market for my photographs is among collectors, galleries and museums, I am
making 25 or so prints of the images most in demand before silver-based papers disappear.
This will be my retirement income. So there are many benefits to me in sticking to what I
know/do best and hoping for the hastening of the digital crowd!
SOME PHOTOGRAPHIC
MYTHS
Understanding is the real satisfaction.
[It is] the only pleasure that is not followed by remorse.
Socrates
In this section we want to touch on a several issues which seem confusing to many
photographers with whom we have talked over the years. A few of these myths
have been mentioned in previous sections but they were not explored at the time,
perhaps because they were not germane to the points being made. All of these
myths deserve even more detailed treatment but we hope our joint comments will
serve to open discussions and debates with friends and colleagues. This section is
not in the form of a conversation, but has been written by us jointly.
Myth No. 1:
Photographers are the best editors of their own work
No. The myth is that the best photographers are the only ones who have the
insight and ability to select the best images of their own work for publication
or exhibition.
The myth arises because the photographer is often too close to the subject matter,
invests the content with emotion which might not be present in the picture, and
believes that in order to be true to myself he/she has a special insight into
the work. But the best editors/selectors of images are those who are capable of
divorcing themselves from emotion when judging their own (or others) work and
assessing picture merit dispassionately and with a cold logic.
Some photographers of the highest rank are capable of this detachment; most are
not. Indeed, many of the best picture editors are not photographers at all.
SOME PHOTOGRAPHIC MYTHS 85
An instructive example of this myth is the career of W. Eugene Smith, who became a legend by
resigning from Life magazine because he was not allowed full control over picture selection.
Photographers applauded Smiths action as a case of artistic integrity in the face of corporate
Philistinism. Unfortunately, the facts are that all of Smiths greatest and best-known work was
edited by Life staffers. When he was given the opportunity to edit his own work the results were
disastrous, as epitomized by his Pittsburgh essay. He shot over 11,000 negatives in one year
(1955), printed 7,000 proofs, and selected 2,000 images. The only publication willing to use
the result was Popular Photography Annual, 1958. It used 88 images over 34 pages. The images
were accompanied by Smiths own labored, tortured prose. Even on Smiths terms, the whole
project was a failure.
W. Eugene Smith had complained so often about his lack of artistic control that we thought it
would be interesting to give him 16 pages plus front cover in our magazine Album. He was told
his choice of images and their layout would be followed without the slightest deviation. The
result was so bad that we felt obliged to print a disclaimer, telling the reader that the images and
the layout were made solely by Smith. There is no disputing the fact that Smith was a superb
photographer, but a poor editor.
In the same way that writers are enhanced by a close relationship with a good editor, so a
photographer can benefit from the insights of a good picture-editor.
Our advice to photographers is: find an editor you can trust, one who is working at the highest
possible level of professionalism. This does not imply you must blindly accept and follow this
persons recommendations; it does imply that this editor might offer you a clarity of insight into
your own work which you would not achieve on your own. The very best photographers are
usually very humble about seeking advice from colleagues they trust.
Myth No 2:
Photographers are their own best writers/designers
The same principles apply. It is very, very rare for a good photographer to be an equally good
writer or designer. Both fields have an abundance of individuals who have spent years of
hard work mastering the nuances of their crafts. It is the height of arrogance to presume that
photographers can do just as well without the equivalent amount of invested time and effort.
Does the skill of the writer or designer suddenly become irrelevant once a photographer enters
the scene? Hardly. Just reverse the situation in order to understand its absurdity. We would be
offended if a fine writer or a successful designer picked up a camera and instantly declared
themselves a great photographer!
David: If I have a choice between writing my own text or collaborating with someone like
Graham Greene, the insistence that I do it myself is ludicrous.
Bill: Many photographers write very well when explaining their methods and intents (see
Photographers on Photography, edited by Nathan Lyons) but that is not the equivalent of excellence
in writing to accompany a photographic essay. Philip Jones Griffiths wrote well in his classic
book, Vietnam Inc., but most photographers images are enhanced by collaboration with brilliant
writers. Examples of such effective collaborations would include: Fay Godwin/John Fowles;
Rosamund Purcell/Stephen Jay Gould; Paul Strand/Basil Davidson; Chris Killip/John Berger;
Bill Brandt/Lawrence Durrell, among others.
Our advice to photographers who are preparing a magazine essay, a book or an exhibition:
collaborate with the best writer and the best designer you can find.
Myth No. 3:
Photographers are good printers
We have all seen many exhibitions even by well-known photographers in which the enlargements
fall short of the highest standards of craftsmanship. The usual justification is a variation of but
its all my own work, which sound to us more like an apology.
The fact remains that printing is a highly skilled profession that demands a great deal of time
(and enthusiasm) to master. Some photographers have the interest in fine printing, and have
invested the effort to become extremely proficient in it. Most have not. In reality, a professional
printer, working in collaboration with the photographer and sensitive to his/her needs, is
likely to produce a far superior result. It is preposterous to think that a photographer can
make enlargements to the same standards as a professional printer who does nothing else
all day, every day.
If it is any consolation, most top photographers use renowned printers for their final prints.
Picto, a lab in Paris, prints the negatives of Robert Frank, Andr Kertsz, Josef Koudelka,
Henri Cartier-Bresson, among others. Thats not a bad group of photographers! What they
understand is that the merit of the image is only as good as the weakest link in the chain.
There is hardly any point in mastering all the other links towards fine photography only to
falter at the final one.
Most photographers, especially those who hope to sell their original prints in the burgeoning
art market, would do much better by accepting the idea that a professional printer is going to
produce a better result than a half-hearted, part-time one, like the photographer. Print-makers
have long understood this point. Most etchers, engravers, lithographers, and those whose
medium is aquatint, photogravure, collotype, or any other print-making technique, employ
master-printers, under the supervision of the artist, to produce the final editions.
To be fair, there is a notion among some art-photographers that a particular sort of magic,
spiritual resonance, or special personality transfer, takes place when the artist handles the paper
in the developer. In some cases, the photographers assert that a certain essence or aura can be
transmitted to some prints as opposed to others from the same negative, with the result that the
former are priced thousands of dollars more. In our effort to be non-judgmental towards these
artists we will merely note that such mysticism equates with bullshit.
Myth No. 4:
Commerce is corrupt, art is pure
A peculiar notion is prevalent among artist-photographers which equates certain kinds of
money with a lack of merit. This fallacious assumption leads to some odd ironies and strange
consequences.
For example, if the institution which pays the photographer is, say, a magazine then he/she
will do the job less well or less sincerely; if the institution which pays the photographer is,
say, an arts agency then he/she will do the job with merit and integrity. There are several
problems with this scenario.
The idea that professionals are commercial hacks but artists are free and independent image-
makers wipes out practically the whole history of photography. Almost without exception,
the great photographers of the past, whose images are revered by contemporary artists, were
professional photographers whose main goal was to earn a living from the sale of their prints.
Sincerity is not the prerogative of the artist. Richard Avedon is a great photographer largely
because he cares about fashion, to the point of obsession about every tiny detail of the process.
Artists could learn a lot from this attention to detail. The fact that Avedon makes a lot of
money is irrelevant.
On first encounter the idea that seemingly impartial arts agencies will provide grants and
fellowships to photographers might imply that this route to making money is less corrupt
than the commercial method. It has been both our experiences that the art world is far more
corrupt in its subjectivity, nepotism, reliance on shared favors, dependence on who you
know than the professional arena.
There is a rank hypocrisy in the idea that art is free of compromise. Heres a simple test. An art
agency is offering a major grant to photograph businesses and homes being built directly on top
of the San Andreas fault in California. It is amazing how many photographers suddenly have a
passion for that subject, who previously would never have considered it!
The bottom line is that, unless you have a private income, it is necessary to make money with
your photography. There is no merit in starving to death or not having enough money to buy
more film in order to shoot more pictures.
Bill: When I worked as a picture editor there was not a single time that the magazines published
an essay by a name photographer if an unknown produced an essay which was better for the
publication (in that it was of greater interest to our readers). I fail to see how this is a more corrupt
system than art grants which tend to go to those with the right buddy contacts. Since I have been
in the arts of academia I have rarely observed an honest, professional appraisal of merit being
the criteria of selection for any grant or award.
David: The great majority of jobs in photography are done by freelance photographers. It
has certainly been my experience that if you produce quality work it is ultimately published.
However, I do believe that part of the process of producing quality work is to understand that
you must be communicating to your general public information that is not boring to them. A test
I often suggest to photographers is to ask themselves: If I were a picture editor/curator would
I publish/exhibit these pictures? It is amazing, if one is honest, how rarely you can come up
with the answer Yes. The trick is to find projects on which you wish to work which also have
a chance of fitting into the editorial policy of various magazines or of producing a visually
arresting exhibition. What I often do myself is not think in terms of one thing I wish to do but
of half a dozen. Having begun to research them I then begin to make a decision as to which
one I will do best on many criteria, one of which might be Does it have any sale possibility,
i.e., is the public interested?
Our recommendation is to select your projects with care, using the analysis which we discussed
earlier, and to realize that if several essays have equal interest to you then it is no compromise
to work on the one which is appealing to others. This applies to all styles of photographing at
both ends of the art-professional spectrum. We all know photographers who cannot photograph
because they did not receive an assignment or an expected grant. This usually means they
were insufficiently enthusiastic about the project to begin with. The answer is to get on with the
project, determine that, yes, it can sustain your interest, and then find any method to support
the continuing photography.
Myth No. 5:
Photography is about talent and instinct
Both of these words, talent and instinct, are comforting to second-raters. They imply that
some people are born with a special gift for making photographs (!) and that no planning or
thought is necessary because such photographers mysteriously sense a picture and, therefore,
everything that they produce is of merit. This attitude is particularly prevalent in the hot-house,
rarefied air of academic art. Time for a reality check.
No one is a born photographer. Thats absurd. Certain people may be born with genetic traits
which are useful to becoming a photographer at a later date, among which physical fitness,
visual acuity and, above all, a lively curiosity about the world, would rank very highly on
a list of desirable characteristics. There are many ways a person may choose to transmit
the object of his/her curiosity to others. Photography is one of them. Thats when the hard
work begins.
Examine the lives of people who have truly excelled in any of the arts music, theater, dance,
sculpture and they all have one characteristic in common: the capacity to commit themselves
wholeheartedly to their chosen disciplines. They do it every day. No excuses. A dancer, for
example, cannot compete at even the lowest level without years of daily exercising; a pianist
cannot perform at a concert after having taken a nine-month break; actors are not given roles in
a Shakespeare play because they feel they should be. So why should photographers expect to
receive one-person exhibitions or publications without similar dedication? Are the standards in
photography so low that success can be achieved with so little effort? Of course not.
The fact is that photographers at the highest level have committed themselves to continuous
and dedicated practice. Fierce single-mindedness and self-motivation are essential. It is very,
very rare to find a part-time photographer in the front ranks. This leads to an uncomfortable
conclusion.
The two routes by which a photographer can earn a living in the medium is as a teacher or as
a professional. The artists of the medium nearly always end up in academia. Very few survive
as photographers at the highest level. Sensibly, they have created an internal system of shared
exhibition venues and publications where they are competing only with each other, not with the
best photographers throughout the medium. That is why documentary photography is at such
a low level in so-called art venues patronized by academia. Some artists do indeed thrive with
college/university patronage. But these are the exceptions, not the rule.
It is no coincidence, therefore, that the very best photographers of the past and present whether
reportage photographers or artist-photographers have been/are professionals. The case of
Walker Evans is instructive because he has been called one of the great artists of 20th century
America in any medium. Look closely and nearly all his major images were taken on assignment,
for Fortune and Survey magazines as well as for The Farm Security Administration. Other
renowned artists in photography who have earned their living as professionals included Weegee,
Joel Meyerwitz, Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, Duane Michals, Eugene Richards, Burk Uzzle,
Elliott Erwitt, Jeff Jacobson and Diane Arbus.
This is not a coincidence. Through professional photography they practice their craft on a
continuous basis and, in so doing, become better at it.
Myth No. 6:
The it-has-been-done-before syndrome
One of the most pernicious and destructive remarks which can be made to a photographer is
that it has been done before, with the clear implication that any attempt to rephotograph the
same subject will be a waste of time, if not unethical.
Of course it has been done before. I doubt if a photographer can think of a subject which
someone, somewhere, at some time has not explored. Should photography, therefore, come
to a screeching halt?
In fact, the opposite is true. Photographers should actively look for ideas, attitudes, images,
influences from the very best photographers of all ages. You cannot learn in a vacuum. The whole
history of photography is a free and open treasure trove of inspiration. It would be masochistic
to deny its riches and usefulness.
For example, I [David] am thinking of expanding my sculpture essay to include war memorials. I
feel sure I was very much influenced by Lee Friedlanders book on monuments, on which he has
said he was influenced by a story in Fortune by Walker Evans, who may have seen Emil Hoppes
book on monuments, who could have seen Eugene Atgts images in old Paris, who probably
knew of the French Historic Monuments Commission, which assigned early paper-negative
photographers of the 1840s such as Charles Marville, Henry Le Secq, Charles Negre and
others. This tree of influence with many branches extends from today back to the dawn of
photography.
Our advice to photographers is best expressed by Calvin Trilling: The immature artist imitates;
the mature artist steals.
So steal from the best. Surround yourself with people who are better than you not only better
photographers but also individuals who are better in their respective fields, no matter what they
might be, than you are in yours. Learn to climb and use other peoples ideas and attitudes as
your ladder. Read good books, even if they are not literary. Our definition of a good book is one
that includes as many ideas as possible that are worth stealing! Pay attention during movies
for ideas from camera angles, pacing, interesting images. Note them. Use them. As poet T.
S. Eliot remarked: Each venture is a new beginning, what there is to conquer has already
been discovered, once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot hope to emulate,
but there is no competition, there is only the fight to recover what has been lost and found
and lost again and again.
Remember that the photographers/artists worst nightmare would be to reach the top of the
ladder with nowhere else to go. The end.
Myth No. 7:
Critics and theorists are useful to photographers
Most colleges and universities do not hire the best in the field because these individuals are
full-time photographers. Teachers are in the classroom, or at meetings, most of the time so all they
can do is talk about photography. So it is not surprising that in academia has arisen a peculiar
type of critical theory which young photographers are expected to apply to their own work and
reference when discussing the work of others.
We have two attitudes to critical theory:
Attitude one: When critical theory is taught prior to or simultaneously with the making of
images: in this case, critical theory is not only useless, it is also positively dangerous. It has
nothing whatsoever to do with the production of fine photographs. The irony here is that most
of the top photographers, often cited by the critics, have never read these theories, would not
understand them even if they encountered them, and have no idea that such an influential group
of thinkers exists in the medium! The dangerous aspect of theory for young photographers is
that attempting to apply its precepts leads to total paralysis. We have both encountered many
photographers who have completely dried up as image-makers in an effort to take pictures
which conform to critical theories. Those who do not stop completely make very bad images
which are then discussed/justified in blinding, mind-numbing jargon. There is a distinct
correlation at work: the more the intrusion of critical theory before the act of photography,
the worse the images will be.
Attitude two: When critical theory is taught after the images have been made or about other
photographers works: in this case, critical theory can be an enjoyable way of stretching the mind,
if the critic is capable of thinking clearly and expressing his/her self with concise, vivid prose.
Photography is a field with an infinite number of profound issues spanning sociology, history,
psychology, biography, science, anthropology, and all the arts; each image can be a pebble
dropped in the pond of consciousness where the ripples eventually lap the very edges of human
existence. Talking about these broader, deeper issues in the medium can be full of stimulation,
inspiration and the sheer pleasure of working out in a mental gymnasium.
We say can be usually critical theory is none of the above but an experience akin to wading
in thick mud through a dense fog. It is no fun. The reason is that the language used by academic
theorists in photography is so dense, obscure, jargon-filled and so damned dull that it is usually
impossible to decipher the points that are being made.
Perhaps the issues are so profound that they cannot be expressed in clear, intelligible, vivid
prose? Not likely. When scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould, Stephen Hawkins, Paul Davies,
Lewis Thomas and Arthur Koestler can write about theories of lifes origins, the nature of
time, quantum physics, the limits of the universe, the paradoxes of evolution, and similarly
complex topics, and produce books of such dazzling appeal that they are best-sellers, are we
really saying that photography is so much more profound that its issues cannot be explained
in clear language? We think not.
Our conclusion is that critical theorists in photography cannot think clearly or write well.
They have many excuses, we are sure, but the bottom line is that their essays are useless
because they are unintelligible. But that is not a condemnation of the critical faculties applied to
photographs. We hope a time will come when a Gould/Hawkins/Davies will turn their attention
to photography. Meanwhile, we pass
Myth No. 8:
You should not photograph in foreign cultures
A rising tide of political correctness threatens to drown the aspirations of photographers
who wish to shoot pictures in cultures not their own, either at home or abroad. The rationale
for this notion is that you cannot fully understand another culture, or race, or ethnic group,
unless you were born in it. The photographs you take, therefore, will be exploitive because
they will not be truthful.
There are several problems with this seemingly liberal idea, and the most important is that people
are far more alike than they are different. The idea that photographers should not photograph people
of different cultures presumes that the differentness is the major issue. In our opinion this
notion is not only false but also it is divisive and verges on racism. Human beings share more in
common with each other than the myth allows, and photographers are in a unique position to
explore, spread and celebrate the one-ness of our existence.
If the truth is elusive when photographing other cultures, then it is equally exploitive, for the
same reasons, to photograph people in different economic brackets (higher, as well as lower),
people of the opposite gender, people of different ages, and people who look different to you.
Taking the argument to its logical conclusion, you should not photograph anyone. And there
does exist an attitude among some critics that all photographs of other human beings, especially
those taken unawares, are not only unethical but (should be) illegal. The idea is that everyone
owns their image, even if that constitutes merely the light reflected off a solid surface. (This
notion would wipe out the vast majority of fine photographs which have been taken since
the 1880s.)
And it would wipe out all the social benefits which have accrued from humanistic photography,
from Lewis Hines work with the Child Labor Committee, to W. Eugene Smiths expose of
toxic waste dumping in the Bay of Minimata, to Sebastio Salgados images which brought
to world attention the slave conditions in Brazils mines. The list would be endless and
include the photographers images which were instrumental in turning the tide of public
opinion against the Vietnam war.
But even if all these social benefits of reportage photography did not exist or could be explained
away, there remains a fundamental flaw in the myth: photographers never claim to tell the
truth. Period.
The best photographers have an intense interest in and enthusiasm for their subjects (which
precludes deliberate exploitation) and they have researched and read and talked until they are
mini-experts in the area. All they claim is: This is what I saw. This is what I felt about what I
saw at the time I was taking the pictures. This is my point of view. This is an individual truth,
to the best of my ability. It will never be everyone elses truth.
David: I was the one who discovered my mother after her death. She had died of natural causes
and had a smile on her face. I wanted to remember that smile and so took a picture just one.
The picture has no relevance to anyone but me and consequently would not be shown to others
outside the immediate family. However, for me, it is the most important picture I have ever taken.
Over the years I had amassed a large number of photographs of this remarkable woman and
decided to print up a coherent set, which I showed to the rest of the family. I was amazed to find
that each in turn would remark, as they looked at different images, that this one or that one really
captured her, was just like her. But the choices of the family members were never the same,
each viewer had a personal preconceived notion of what was the truth. At this point I clearly
realized that there is no universal answer, or agreed truth, even with a subject on which all
the viewers were extremely knowledgeable. Each viewer brought to the photograph his/her
own truth.
Our advice to photographers is: do your homework, examine motives, be clear about the purpose
of the pictures, make no exaggerated claims towards omniscience and ignore the myth.
Myth No. 9:
Documentary photography is not art
Dont panic this will not be a treatise on the various definitions of art in an effort to force
photographs into an odd-shaped pigeonhole. Instead, we want to offer a few words of consolation
to photographers, perhaps struggling in an art-academic environment, who are feeling a sense
of inadequacy in their straight photography when surrounded by the transformations of the
medium practiced by artists. It is our contention that much of the confusion surrounding art and
photography would dissipate by bearing in mind two simple statements:
Art is not the medium or style but the agreed merit of a body of work created over a life-time of
achievement by a dedicated individual.
This body of work is likely to center around the unique characteristics of the chosen medium.
Both statements could be expanded, amended, reconfigured and analyzed ad infinitum, ad nauseam,
but they do serve to clarify certain problems and dispel the myth under discussion.
Today, especially in art environments, the photographer is urged/expected to emphasize

individuality. Can reportage photography reveal such personal idiosyncrasies? The clear
answer is that it is impossible to keep them out of the images. You select a subject for which
you have interest and enthusiasm; you choose how best this subject is revealed by camera
viewpoint; you decide on the precise moment when it is most significant all these are very
subjective, personal decisions.
Indeed, it is our contention that the self is more emphatically expressed by ignoring it and
concentrating on the thing itself. Personal knowledge is gained by objectification, looking outward
not inward. Life itself is the mirror in which the personal image is reflected.
Is there any evidence for these assertions? Look at large bodies of work by the finest reportage
photographers and you quickly discover that it is easy to distinguish the individual styles
and concerns. That should come as something of a shock if reportage photography is only an
impersonal, objective reflection of reality.
Another experiment (hypothetical, this time): let us suppose you could ask 100 of the best critics,
curators, historians, museum directors and photographers to each select the 50 greatest images
in the history of the medium. Our guess is that the vast majority of these 5,000 images would fall
under the general category of straight, documentary or reportage photography.
These remarks are not intended to disparage the work or ideas of the painters, sculptors and print-
makers who utilize photographic images. That is a legitimate and sometimes fascinating process
for producing visually stimulating works of mixed-media. But it is not photography.
We believe that photographers of all personality types, using the whole panoply of camera
formats, would become better photographers at a faster rate by employing the common
denominators gleaned from the images, ideas and lives of the best photographers throughout
the mediums history. These basic principles are:
1. Photographers are not primarily interested in photography.

They have a focused energy and enthusiasm which is directed at
an outside, physically present, other. They bring to this subject an
exaggerated sense of curiosity, backed up by knowledge gleaned from
reading, writing, talking, note-taking.
2. The photographer transmits this passion in the thing itself by

making pictures, therefore the subject must lend itself to a visual
medium, as opposed to, say, writing about it.
3. The photographer must assiduously practice his/her craft so that

there is no technical impediment between realizing the idea and
transmitting it through the final print.
4. The photographer must have the ability to analyze the components

of the subject-idea so that a set of images not only reflects the basic
categories but also displays visual variety. Intense, clear thinking is
a prerequisite to fine photography.
5. The photographer is aware that, like all difficult endeavors, to be

good at photography requires an unusual capacity for continuous
hard work and
Good Luck.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

DAVID HURN BILL JAY
David Hurn has achieved international renown Bill Jay began his career in England where he
across a wide range of professional photo- was the first Director of Photography at the
graphic activities. As a hard news photographer Institute of Contemporary Arts and the first
he cut his teeth at the Reflex Agency as a pro- editor/director of Creative Camera and Album
tg of Michael Peto. He soon turned freelance magazines. During this time, he earned a
and covered major topical events, including the living as Picture Editor of a large circulation
Hungarian Revolution for Life, The Observer and news/feature magazine and as the European
major magazines and newspapers throughout Manager of an international picture agency.
the world.
After studying with Beaumont Newhall and
He began to shoot special projects on major Van Deren Coke at the University of New
movies, which in turn led to a brief, but lucrative, Mexico, he founded the program of Photo-
period as a fashion photographer for Harpers, graphic Studies at Arizona State University
The Telegraph and Jardin des Modes. where he taught history and criticism classes
for 20 years. He is now retired.
But it was the feature essay which was his
first love. He worked on many assignments Bill Jay has published over 400 articles and
concerning what is now known as alternative is the author of more than 15 books on the
lifestyles, often with brilliant writers such history and criticism of photography. Some of
as Nell Dunne and Irwin Shaw. It was these his recent titles include: Cyanide and Spirits: an
essays which brought him to the attention of inside-out view of early photography; Occams Razor:
the worlds most prestigious photographic an outside-in view of contemporary photography;
collaborative, Magnum Photos, Inc. He was USA Photography Guide; Bernard Shaw: On
invited to become a Full Member in 1967. Photography; Negative/Positive: a philosophy of
photography, etc.
In 1970, David Hurn founded The School
of Documentary Photography in Newport, Bill Jay is a frequent guest lecturer at colleges
Wales. Since 1990 he has returned to fulltime and universities in Britain and Europe as well
photography, producing self-assigned major as throughout the USA. His own photographs
essays for both publication and exhibition. In have been widely published and exhibited,
1999 the National Museum of Wales gave him including a one-person show at the San Fran-
their Millenium exhibition. cisco Museum of Modern Art.
The contents of this computer media
are copyrighted materials
Please note that this computer file has been sold as a consumer product for the
private non-commercial use of the purchaser only. Its contents are copyrighted
in its entirety and may not be duplicated by any means for use other than the
original purchaser. Each article, portfolio and photographic image is copyrighted
by the author or photographer and may not be duplicated for any purpose or by
any means without their consent.
Cli
2001 LensWork Publishing
LensWork Publishing
909 Third Street
Anacortes, WA 98221-1502 U.S.A.
USA TOLL FREE 1-800-659-2130
Voice 360-588-1343 FAX 503-605-9111
Email [email protected]
Visit our World Wide Web site at:

http://www.lenswork.com
including the LensWork On-line Gallery,
LensWork On-line Index,
the latest information about offerings
from LensWork Publishing.

David Hurn, Bill Jay On Being A Photographer A Practical Guide PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

David Hurn, Bill Jay On Being A Photographer A Practical Guide PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

David Hurn, Bill Jay On Being A Photographer A Practical Guide PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

Who wrote the book?

Who wrote the book?

Photography/Photojournalism $12.95 USD Revised Third Edition!

A photographer might forget his camera and live to tell the

A very useful book. It discusses issues which will benefit all B I L L J AY

I read On Being a Photographer in one sitting. This is an

David Hurn/Magnum and Bill Jay

We all take photographs but few of us are photographers. On photog-

Our grateful thanks, also, to Jo Ann Briseo, a specialist in the World

Copyright 1997, 2001 Bill Jay and David Hurn

All rights reserved.

First Printing, November 1997

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number : 97-075635

Printed in the United States of America

ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPHER: DAVID HURN .......................... 8

SELECTING A SUBJECT .......................................................... 28

SHOOTING THE SINGLE PICTURE .......................................... 37

CREATING CONTACTS .......................................................... 47

THE PICTURE ESSAY ............................................................ 55

CAMERAS, SHOES AND OTHER ESSENTIALS .......................... 62

THE FUTURE OF PHOTOGRAPHY .......................................... 72

SOME PHOTOGRAPHIC MYTHS ............................................. 84

ABOUT THE AUTHORS ......................................................... 96

ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPHER

RUSSIA Colin Wilson, the writer Stuart Holroyd, the

Harpers. His fashion assignments began, SUBCULTURES

WALES Meanwhile he was also active in the burgeoning

Bill Jay: My first editor, an abrasive ex-newspaperman called Alex Surgenor,

David Hurn: Im a photographer, obviously. My chosen tool for understanding

My concession to objectivity is more of an attempt towards honesty in relation to the

What do you mean by honesty?

Or, I witness with the emphasis on the first person singular!

Words, words, words. Are we finished with definitions yet?

David Hurn: Thats true. The fundamental issue is one of emphasis:

Explain what you mean.

Many people are interested in photography in some nebulous way; they

The destination of photography is to reveal what something or somebody looked like,

How would you answer?

How I shudder at the interminable, self-indulgent, often incomprehensible photo-critiques I have

Sherlock Holmes to Dr. Watson,

Which sounds pretty nebulous

But it is not. There are two fundamental elements in all picture-taking:

Theres a wonderfully symbolic image by Leonard Freed depicting a prisoners hand

At an exhibition of photographs someone button-holed Edward Steichen and asked: If you

I think he must have been quoting me!

True. Many large-format photographers work in a remarkably similar manner to reportage

How many frames would you shoot of such a situation?

David Hurn: So let us emphasize that this is a vitally important stage,

What do you mean by perfect?

I mean that it must be as sharp as technically possible (which usually

For me, the contact sheet has four main purposes:

4) Looking at the contact sheets of other photographers work allows me to understand

As I said earlier, I make my contact sheets on 9 x 12 inch sheets [a standard size in

But the most important information is a numbering system which, in my case, is

Then you make proof prints from the selected frames.

Any last thoughts on the making of prints?

THE PICTURE ESSAY