"What a lovely photo! You must have a very good camera..."
What on Earth is an appropriate answer?
"Indeed I have - my sole contribution to the creative process was buying it in the first place..."
"No, it's a cheap piece of crap, but I have the compositional skills of Raphael."
...or something in between?
over the years I have been as guilty as anyone of the typical English passive aggressive non-response in such circumstances - smile, shrug and back away while simultaneously listening to the little inner voice chanting "Blood, blood, blood"... Of course it's hard to be rude when a) someone genuinely thinks they are paying you a compliment and b) they are either elderly or attractive. The natural impulse to snap back is repressed - bad for the blood pressure, I know, but good for the inheritance/prospects of a good night out.
Of course in many cases it is true. It is hard to find a truly bad camera these days. Even the cheapest digi-compact can turn out a halfway decent result if handled right. However, I think it is worth exploring what triggers such a comment. Look at it from the point of view of the other person - your photo has moved them in some way. Why? What was it that drove them to say something? I think in many cases it comes down to what they are used to seeing, and the results that they feel they can produce themselves.
The photos that I find get a strong reaction are those that either have a strong motif, or a particular "look" - that might be a macro shot, or one dominated by a single strong colour, or a powerful monochrome image, or, particularly, one with very shallow depth of focus. That last fascinates me - and I think it is because it is simply not available to anyone using a cameraphone, small sensor digicam or slow-lensed film compact that it is so worthy of comment. It smacks the viewer in the eye, because it isn't the way they see the world, or have been able to capture it themselves.
Okay bokeh?
Do the particpants and professional practitioners of other pursuits have to put up with this, I wonder? Does Gordon Ramsay get told his meals are delicious because of his great pans, or does Elton John get complimented on his choice of piano? I think not. Maybe it is because everyone fancies that they can take a photo, but that you need a "better" camera than the one they have to take a "better" photo than they can.
We aren't going to change the world overnight, though. So what to do? Now I am more grumpy old, than angry young man, I have more of an inclination towards the "mission to inform" approach. I try - gently - to explain that yes, I do have a good camera, but that it does need me to carry it from place to place, aim it in the right direction, decide what settings to use, where to put the point of focus, etc. I try not to sound condescending, but instead try to build a rapport, and generate some genuine interest in how I have achieved an image worthy of their comment, and how they could do the same.
The key to this approach is the counter question - keep it in mind, chant it like a mantra, so that you are ready for the next time.
Ok?
Ready?
Here we go...
"What makes you think that?"
Try it - it works, and is far less likely to get you arrested than clobbering an old lady around the head with a Leica...
Bill
--o-O-o--
- All images on this blog are copyright Bill Palmer and may not be reproduced in any format or medium without permission.
As a working photojpournalist, carrying as many as four cameras at a time, I'd often encounter someone joking, "Do you think you have enough cameras?" After careful restraint and practice like you, I finally learned to look at the joker with a twinkle in my eye and answer, deadpan, "No."
ReplyDeleteThe more sincere ones would then engage in a conversation in which they learned that I had to carry that many so I didn't have to change lenses. Then I'd get to use the line from a friend who won awards shooting for Time magazine: "If you're changing lenses, you're just watching."