Journalling – Reflective Practice – Critical Research Journal

Surely documentary photography should be objective?

The claim that documentary photography should be objective is a popular myth because it overlooks the inherently subjective nature of photography as a medium. While the genre of documentary photography is often perceived as capturing unbiased, “truthful” depictions of reality, the choices made by photographers—what to photograph, how to frame it, when to click the shutter, and how to present the image—are all subjective decisions that influence how viewers interpret the image.

Firstly, no photograph can capture reality in its entirety. The act of framing a shot inherently excludes other aspects of the scene, guiding viewers towards a particular narrative. Photographers choose what elements to emphasise or exclude, and this choice introduces a perspective. Even in seemingly neutral images, the framing, composition, and moment of capture reflect the photographer’s personal, political, or artistic vision.

Secondly, the editing process further shapes the narrative. Photographers often select certain images over others, adjust lighting or contrast, and arrange photos in a particular order. This process introduces another layer of subjectivity, shaping how an audience perceives the story.

Moreover, the myth of objectivity also assumes that photographs are neutral depictions of reality, ignoring the cultural, social, and political contexts in which images are produced and viewed. Historical and cultural norms influence both the photographer’s gaze and the viewer’s interpretation of images, often in ways that reflect power dynamics, biases, and ideologies.

Finally, it is worth considering the argument of philosopher Susan Sontag, who in On Photography pointed out that photographs are not just passive recordings of the world but are “selections from the world.” This selection process necessarily imposes a subjective framework on the material. The idea of a purely objective documentary photograph, then, is illusory.

So to sum up, documentary photography, while often thought to be objective, is shaped by subjective choices and cultural factors. This myth persists because of the medium’s association with truth and evidence, but the reality is far more complex.

Does ‘street’ photography have to include people…?

A question from The Street Photography Club…. OK, I will flip this a little… To me, ‘street’ photography is NOT about the image but what was going on inside the photographer when they created it. If that process of creation provokes a sense of risk or danger (although that could be mild and very personal), then it is ‘street’. If I am taking no risk, avoiding any danger, then it is something else. It could be landscape, minimalist, portrait, architectural, surrealist, whatever – but it is only ‘street’ if I am putting myself in a space that feels to me to be risky.

Another way of expressing the same idea would be to say that the environment within which I was working needs to be ‘edgy’ for a ‘street’ image to be created.

I was able to visit the “Visa pour l’image”, the 36th International Festival of Photojournalism in Perpignan, France a couple of weeks ago. One of the first exhibits that I visited was the work of Gaël Turine (https://www.gaelturine.com/) on the Ravages of Tranq Dope in Philadelphia. Many of his images are unposed, ‘candid’, up-close, and deeply personal. In his presentation he explained that he visited the dope neighbourhood with a social worker initially. But when he viewed the images he felt something was missing. He returned that night, alone, but with a taxi for protection/quick escape if need be.

I am afraid that a lot of the images that we all take are not, in my terms, ‘street’. There isn’t any risk involved in taking pictures through rain-soaked windows, of people who are already ‘putting themselves out there’.