When is a Pose Not a Pose

I keep reading on the 'net (and elsewhere) that "posing" is out yet what do I see when I look at portrait images?  POSES >

I've had several people tell me they don't "pose" their subjects, they just tell them to stand over there and then they make the capture  .  One gal told me she tells them to stand over there but then she refines their pose, (in other words she poses them! )

So what do you do?

Ben

Telling someone to "stand over there" and not posing them has only one reason: the photographer has no ideas and no craftsmanship at all! In fact, he isn't a photographer at all, just someone with a camera. Usually they don't have a clue about lighting their subject too.

How could someone, without any experience know what pose suits him/her best? They don't have any idea. It is OUR task to guide them to the process. Imitating what they see in the magazines doesnot work at all; these poses don't have to suit them, they are someone elses.

Indeed, I had some "natural posers" in my studio too, about 2%. 

Leen

Hey Joel-  GOOD question.  I think there are several definitions of a pose and each will depend on what situation you are in.  In portrait and wedding photography one has to be adaptable.  I'll try to brake theses situations down for you.

In the studio, I often adhere to very formal posing methods.  This does not mean that the resulting portrait will be stiff and unnatural. Getting these carefully posed images to look nature is where the artistry is.  In this situations I take control of everything from the subject's posture, exact placement of the subject's head right down to his or her feet- this has a lot to do with body mechanics.  Even in a seated position, in making a good head and shoulders portrait, the position of the feet, legs and arms can effect the success of the final image in terms of line, lack of facial distortion and the all over naturalness on the portrait.  Believe it or not- the subject can be kept comfortable during such a procedure and yield great expressions as well.  This can also apply to certain aspects of formal wedding photography.

In such conditions as working on the dance floor at a wedding or making casual images of groups and couples at weddings and special events- your method is just fine.  Let the people pose naturally and just clean things up a put as per your own idea of what looks good.  All photographers have to develop theses instincts and be able to work quickly in casual situations. 

A real candid or photo-journalistic image demands no interference on the part of the photographer- you just grab your shots by anticipating the action and being in the right time at the right place.  Some photographers profess that this is the only way to get truly authentic images- they capture the moment.  I agree with this to a certain extent.  In wedding photography, however, I feel that many clients want an idealization of the event and would not care to see sloppiness in some of the images.  I inform them that I will make a truly spontaneous coverage of their reception party, but will occasionally step in to correct something.  A crumpled dinner napkin should not be seen when the couple cut their wedding cake.  The first dance image should not show an awkward position- it takes 5 seconds to clean that up- things like that!

I think it is all a mixture of the knowledge of aesthetics (what looks good) and common sense.  It is also a matter of what your clients expect you to do.  If you are expected to be a fly on the wall, the have to expect that you will be limited as what you can do about corrections in portraiture or wedding photography- attention to detail.  If the want to participate in the making of their photographs- to a reasonable extent- they will expect more perfection in at least their formal poses. 

I hop this serves as a useful set of guidelines for you- any more questions?- please post soon!

Ed Shapiro