Featured post

Contemporary Narratives - Photography: A Short Guide to History, Theory, and Practice: Online Course Starting April 27th 2022

  Sign up to my new series of talks on Contemporary Narratives - Photography: A Short Guide to History, Theory, and Practice .  Starts on Ap...

Wednesday, 22 April 2009

How not to Photograph: Hasn't She Grown Part 2

pictures: Colin Pantall (from Seven Stages of an Idealized Childhood)

Forget that last post. What a load of twaddle!

Photographing children, especially if they are your own children, is great. It cannot be recommended enough. Instead of gallivanting all over the place photographing bridges, tribesmen and dead pigeons at great personal and financial expense, you get to spend time with your family and kids.

You can see how they grow up, how they change. You can photograph the tears, the fears, the trauma and the joy. You can make series of them doing different things and relate this to different theories of child care and development, capturing them as they climb up from squawling newborn to egocentric toddler and burgeoning self-awareness. While you do this you get closer to your child and learn something about yourself and the footsteps of your life.

You can give your series a title - "The Seven Stages of an Idealized Childhood" is the one for me - and then you can edit your work right down to the 40 images that will be the perfect portrayal of what it is to be a child - because that's the thing we are all trying to capture.

Childhood is tender, beautiful, brutal and traumatic - so there is an emotional gamut you can capture. The environment you photograph in may be domestic, but what you photograph can be extraordinary, the glances, postures and poses that show the physical and emotional side of becoming a child, an adult, a human. At it's best, photographing children is honest, raw, physical, emotional, psychological, cultural and incredibly political.

What could be better, more worthwhile or more valuable than that?


andrewt said...

Interesting pair of posts. Agree on many points. We have two young'ins and unless I abandon them they are about all I have time to photograph these days. I recently got back a roll of Ilford 3200 35mm taken with my rangefinder, shot "documentary style" to add some interesting perspective, and my wife did not like them. She prefers dull digital snapshots. But I'll still pursue to keep my creative side engaged.

Also, taking pictures if your kids is like any other photography. Out of so many shots you'll only get a few keepers in most cases. But with our own kids we have a hard time editing down to those few.

colin pantall said...

Good points Andrew - I agree it's all down to the editing and killing your darlings.I find time helps and you can look back and cut things down better after a few years distance.

colin pantall said...

Sorry Rich - I deleted your post by accident. Do post again.

Dan Connolly said...

To not photography your children in some serious way is a dereliction. To publish them is another question entirely.

colin pantall said...

Dan - I'm not sure about both of those comments. Why is it a dereliction not to photograph them?

And what is the other question of publishing pictures of children? What do you think?