POLL - That kiss

[daft_biker]

It's the difference between watching a natural history programme where the crew has laid bait for a tiger and one where the tiger's kill is a natural one, there's a question on integrity. That's not to say that the resulting image isn't a great one, but there's a world of difference between suggesting that a photo was just caught when in fact it was set up. Photography isn't just about the end result, there's a weight of responsibility that goes with the recording of a scene. As long as the situation is honestly reported then the viewer can make up their own mind, but to suggest otherwise, or not to correct when misconstrued, is wrong.

Aye, springtails walking on water is one that springs to my mind - difficult to photograph in the wild but a piece of cake to set up. It came up in discussion with an expert and I said I want to photograph them walking on water(and the two other uses they have for the inner claw that the expert listed).....suddenly there's a flood of staged shots of springtails on water posted on Flickr and various forums. Staging it is merely a formality but photographing it in the wild is a worthwhile challenge IMO.

I think the same applies to the kissing shot....it's not exactly rocket science to set up once you have the shot in mind. I'd be far more impressed if it wasn't staged.

[El_Sid]

I'd be far more impressed if it wasn't staged.

Mine wasn't...

[Roy5051]

Most Magazine-type pictures are set up, surely everyone knows that. It is when hard-news pictures, pretending to be "truth", are set up, that is what is wrong.

[Benchista]

Most Magazine-type pictures are set up, surely everyone knows that. It is when hard-news pictures, pretending to be "truth", are set up, that is what is wrong.

Spot on.

Actually, I don't know if I should laugh or cry when I read people getting uptight about what category a photo should fit in, in this case street or not. What a very "photographer" attitude - it's a picture, FFS. If it's posed, it shows the photographer's skill and vision - if it's candid, his reactions. Either way, for a piece of art why on earth should it matter to anyone? The photographer should be judged on what he produces.

[Barney]

Most Magazine-type pictures are set up, surely everyone knows that. It is when hard-news pictures, pretending to be "truth", are set up, that is what is wrong.

I was once on a beach in Barbados with a certain lady who had just been voted off I'm a Celebrity. She was having a heated conversation with someone in the UK because she had been photographed on the beach the day before. It transpires that the problem was she shouldn't have gone to the beach that day because she had arranged to be 'paparazzied' the following day and the paper had therefore lost it's exclusie for which it had paid good money. When I returned to the UK, a friend showed me her copy of Now! (or some similar rag) which contained shots of the celeb and a young man which the mag suggested may be her new beau. The fact that he was as camp as a row of pink tents and was baby sitting her for another magazine was neither here nor there.

[Barney]

Either way, for a piece of art why on earth should it matter to anyone? The photographer should be judged on what he produces.

If it is art and there is no subtext from the artist then I agree, but there very rarely is no subtext from an artist, they're always trying to say something, and only a minority of photogrpahs are shot purey as peices of art anyway. In the broader scheme of photography, the photographer is often judged on far more than what he or she merely 'produces'.

[daft_biker]

Most Magazine-type pictures are set up, surely everyone knows that. It is when hard-news pictures, pretending to be "truth", are set up, that is what is wrong.

Spot on.

I know press togs setup shots to illustrate news articles so now I can't trust those either (one guy I'm thinking of works for The Scotsman/Evening News BTW).

I think the terms of reference are important when viewing a picture. If it looks like a candid I'm going to view it as a candid but if it's a setup that looks like a candid then my assumed terms of reference are not right. For me it changes how I view a picture and judging by the below you seem to think something along the same lines:

it's posed, it shows the photographer's skill and vision - if it's candid, his reactions.

When I see the image in question I wrongly assume it's a candid because it looks like a candid to me. I assume that was the photographers intention?

If the photographer set out to decieve me they did a good job! Without knowing the terms of reference for the picture I would not be able to appreciate that. Having said that I'd still rather be viewing it as a record of real event as I liked it more before I knew it was staged.

[LargeFormat]

If it's posed, it shows the photographer's skill and vision - if it's candid, his reactions. Either way, for a piece of art why on earth should it matter to anyone? The photographer should be judged on what he produces.

Or it's a record. I remember, years ago, a strike in South Wales, Baglan Bay actually, where the press turned up, explained to the pickets that they needed a bit of action and were obliged accordingly. The news showed a violent protest at the factory door when, in reality, it was just guys sitting round a brazier. I think that matters.

[beardsofquebec]

The Doisneau image, when looked at in the context in which it was made, was a propaganda of sorts. It said to a wider, internationally audience that the war had ended, men returned victorious, long-lost lovers reunited and that hope was on the horizon. I am convinced Monsieur Doisneau and his editors were acutely aware of the potential power this image would inevitably evoke. 'The Kiss' is one of most iconic photographs of all time, and personally, was a significant reason why I became interested in photography in the first place.