single women # 20 (with variation) ~ caught in the act
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 at 08:33AM ;)
Gallery receptionist ~ Chelsea / NYC, NY • click to embiggen;)
Gallery receptionist's hands ~ Chelsea / NYC, NY • click to embiggenOne of the challenges faced in the making of my single women pictures is the notion of stealth. That is to state, I do not want the target of my camera's gaze to be aware of my picturing intentions. In order for the pictures to work, voyeur / voyeurism wise, it is imperative that the woman being picture evinces no evidence of the fact they are being observed / pictured.
An easy solution to this imperative would be to make the pictures with a long-ish focal length lens. Something on the order of my 45mm (90mm, 35mm equiv.) lens. With its f1.8 max aperture, that lens would be well suited to most available light conditions (indoors or out) and it certainly would yield very flattering, almost portrait-like, results. Nice, but not what I'm looking for.
A long-ish focal length lens would not create the up-close-and-personal / intimate perspective I am seeking - a visual feeling of stepping into / violating (in a non-threatening manner) a person's "space". A feeling which would result - at least, that's my hope - in a concomitant sensation (on the part of the viewer of the pictures) of discomfort / ill-at-ease-ness. A feeling generated by the fear of being caught staring.
In any event, to date I have successfully made in the neighborhood of 20 single women pictures without being noticed. Or, if I were noticed, no recognition of that fact was ever demonstrated. I have never been acknowledged, confronted, slapped silly, or reported to any authorities by the objects of my camera/eye's affection. Either I'm good at the stealth thing - aided and abetted by the stealthy-ness of the diminutive / unobtrusive E-P1/2s - or my subjects have a high degree of tolerance / indifference to a creepy old man with a camera.
That is, until subject # 20. Well, not exactly ... I had already got the shot I wanted - FYI, I usually only get one click of the shutter - but was tempted to get another with a different POV to include more of the flower in the background. Unfortunately, as is made plain from the 'hands" picture, my cover was blown.
Fortunately, she was a very good sport. Upon dropping her hands, she had a big smile on her face. It was almost as if we had been playing a game and she had won the last move. I explained my single women series to her and she nodded thoughtfully - after all, she is a receptionist in a photo gallery.
She never made any mention of my first (successful) attempt and I suspect that's because she never noticed. However, if I have an exhibit of my single women work - and I believe I will - the invitation most definitely will feature the "hands" picture.
Reader Comments (2)
I really wish I was brave enough to do this sort of thing. It reminds me of your post about including people in pictures. But for me, photography is about escapism and relaxation so whilst making images I have to be in my comfort zone.
It is unfortunate that the girl's hands, which look beautiful in the first picture, have turned out to appear so manly in the second picture (reminding me of a particular Sienfeld episode). I suppose this is the reuslt of the lens you are using and your distance from the subject.