OK What is Candid? What does it mean to you?

I just saw a post within a thread that once again, challanged the word or deffinition of the word " Candid"

The poster of the images put them into a special section devoted to non-candids or what he perceives to be non candids.



but....


I assert they were candids without a minutia of doubt.

The images were totally unrehearsed, not set up by telling the subjects how/ when/ where to pose.

They were taken spontaeneously of random never before met strangers on a street.

OK..the subjects of course mugged for the camera, but does that make them less of a candid than say.......images of people totally unaware that there is a camera in the vicinity ?


From Merriman Webster
Please pay particular attention to #4

Main Entry: can·did
Pronunciation: 'kan-d&d
Function: adjective
Etymology: French & Latin; French candide, from Latin candidus bright, white, from candEre to shine, glow; akin to Welsh can white, Sanskrit candati it shines
1 : WHITE <candid flames>
2 : free from bias, prejudice, or malice : FAIR <a candid observer>
3 a : marked by honest sincere expression b : indicating or suggesting sincere honesty and absence of deception c : disposed to criticize severely : BLUNT

******************
4 : relating to photography of subjects acting naturally or spontaneously without being posed

******************


What is your deffinition of a true candid?

Isnt the act of taking someones picture without them knowing at all more a " Voyeur" type situation? whereas taking totally unrehearsed as by defffinition images a "Candid/s"?








( this was prompted by a comment in the aforemention post and I think we really need to finally cut into a rosetta stone what is and is not a candid)

( btw..i'm bored...lol)

[mate68]

And that is, what I found at Wikipedia about candid photography:

Candid photography is snapshot photography that focuses on spontaneity rather than technique, on perfecting the immersion of a camera within events rather than focusing on setting up a staged situation, focusing on lengthy camera setup, or focusing on particularly strong lenses.

The photographic setup of candid photography is best described as un-posed and unplanned, as immediate and unobtrusive, as opposed to classic photography, such as carefully staged portrait photography, landscape photography or object photography. Candid photography is supposed to catch rare instances of life from the very immersion into it, rather than to produce imagery of still life, to catch rare moments of "reality" which presupposes a definition of "reality". Candid photography is also set off against the voyeuristic stalking involved in animal photography, sports photography or photographic journalistic intrusion, which all have a very strong technical focus on getting distant objects photographed, e.g. by using telephoto lenses. Candid photography's setup includes a photographer who is typically there with the "subjects" to be photographed if not close, and not hidden. People photographed on candid shots either ignore or accept the close presence of the photographer's camera without posing for photos.

The events documented are often private, they involve people in close relation to something they do, or they involve people's relation to each other. Candids are the kinds of pictures taken at children's birthday parties and on Christmas morning, opening the presents; the pictures a wedding photographer takes at the reception, of people dancing, eating, and socializing with other guests. They are taken at leisure, or at special occasions, they show people as they are when they do not prepare to be photographed.

Some professional photographers develop candid photography into an art form. Henri Cartier-Bresson might be considered the master of the art of candid photography, capturing the "decisive moment" in everyday life over a span of several decades. Arthur Fellig, better known as Weegee, was one of the great and renowned photographers to document life in the streets of New York to often capture life - and death - at their rawest edges. Almost all successful photographers in the field of candid photography master the art of making people relax and feel at ease around the camera, they master the art of blending in at parties, of finding acceptance despite an obvious intrusive element - the camera. This is certainly true for most celebrity photographers, such as René Burri, Raeburn Flerlage or Murray Garret.

It could be argued that candid photography is the purest form of photojournalism, and as such, it represents an evolution that relates to classic photography just as weblogging relates to classic journalism. There is a fine line between photojournalism and candid photography, a line that was blurred by photographers such as Bresson and Weegee. Photojournalism often sets out to tell a story in images, whereas candid photography simply captures people living an event.

Technical equipment successfully employed for candid photography is typically lightweight, small and unobtrusive rather than big and intimidating. Lomo rule photography features usage of an old Russian point and shoot camera and focuses entirely on candid photography, and being close to the object or subject to be photographed is one rule that makes up for small photo lenses. The larger the equipment, the more difficult to master the art of making the equipment appear to be unobtrusive to still achieve candid photography. The more delayed a shutter reacts to the button of a camera, the less useful a camera would be for taking snapshots of immediate situations. Digital cameras, therefore, are less popular for candid photography than 35mm point and shoot cameras. Quiet cameras are far more useful than noisier models.

As camera immersion into social events is the prime key to making candid photography happening, pictures typically reflect the technical constraints that go with this. Candid photography, unless performed digitally, requires sensitive film, as flash lights can cause cameras to stop from being an immersed part of a meeting or party, causing people to stage their photo appearance rather than behaving naturally. Due to higher film speeds being required for inside photography or dark photography without flashlight, candid photography can feature very grainy, contrast-rich images. As small point and shoot cameras with affordable lenses are used widely for candid photography, typical exhibits may feature vignetting and oversaturation of colours. Due to short reaction times, lighting or focus may be off; and due to flashlight being obstructive to candid photography, pictures may show glary overexposure, underexposure, color shifts or blurring. Such technical aspects of candid pictures are usually accepted as features of candid photography.

My personal understanding about candid photography is, that the photographer took pictures of people in public out- and indoor locations.
And the people didn`t know, that they are photographed.
Maybe something like voyeurism ... but that is my mind about candid photography.
(Sorry about my english ... I hope you know what I mean)

[Satan]

Candid is anything unplanned.

At an event? so fricken what. Point your camera at a person in the event and they smile and do a curtsey, that's posed.

Sporting events ARE CANDIDS
Events ARE CANDIDS
Cheerleading events are candids

[greatphotos]

To me, even if someone saw you taking a photo and smiled, they weren't expecting to have their photo taken at that moment so it would be candid. So if they were about to bite into a hot dog and looked up and smiled (or frowned ) and you snapped a photo, it would still be candid to me. Maybe even if someone is walking toward you and you aim your camera in their direction and they decide to ham it up for the camera, that might still be candid cause it would be spontaneous.

Now if you pulled them aside and said stand over here and lean against the tree, that would definitely be posed.

just my opinion. I don't know, there could be many variables.

[neo]

this debate will never end....


great read mate.. thanks

DP OPINON ALERT!

I think canidid is a spectrum which at one end has the subject unaware and at
the other is a spontaneous encounter.

The spontaneous encounter is where we find the candidness of the moment
come into question. From the point of reference of what is captured in the
photograph (not the reality of the encounter) the spontaneous yet candid
encounter begins with eyecontact with the photographer and his lens. It
passes through a smile or other expressive response up to the point where
the subject begins to posture for your camera.

Another grey area of concern is who and where you shoot. I think some
people and some places are more candid than others. People in places where
they expect to be photographed is not as candid a situation as you would
find in a crosswalk on a street at rush hour. But even at a fashion show there
will be people who dont expect to be photographed and candid moments of
those that are there who expect it.

For me its all in how the photograph feels. If it feels spontaneous, that it
captures either an ordinary unplanned moment or decisive moment, it is a
candid shot. Posed shots where the subject prepares themselves to be
photographed are not candid. A model with the spotlight of attention on her,
wearing her game face is not candid, like it isnt for the actress performing on
stage. Like the model under the lights and the actress on stage, the athlete
playing her game, does not make for a candid moment. But, for each, the
model, the actress, and the athlete, there will be candid moments off away
from the spotlight, off the stage, and off the field of play.

Because the difficulty of shooting candid relates to, if not somewhat mirrors,
the candidness spectrum, I'm behind the idea that we should restrict the
monthly contest to non-event/performance photography to avoid the grey
area of trying to define what is candid and what is not from shots made in
those environments.

THIS WUZ ONLY AN OPINION

[Ambusher]

I was going to argue that only when the subject is unaware is the shot "candid", then I realized that I often shoot at events and people are often aware of me, yet I would present those shots here as "candid".

Still, there's a certain "purity" to the totally unaware subject. Even when the aware subject is ignoring me, I think they are going to act slightly different then they otherwise would, even if its at a subconcious level. If people are aware that there is a "documenter" there, it might keep them from doing that spontaneous action they might otherwise have done. Or you might get the opposite, people hamming it up for the camera, and now you are getting their "show off" personality -- which is really one of those masks people use to keep their distance.

OK, where was I?

Well, I guess to me "candid" is when the subjects don't show obvious reaction to the photographer, whether or not they are actually aware of him. So unlike some of the other commentators, I would not include spontaneous smiles, poses, etc., because the people are no longer going about their business in the manner they would if the camera was not there.

[Telephoto Ink]

To me, candid means anything not posed. I take pictures during contests at clubs and I consider them candid since they're not posing for me. Now, I do believe they're not as candid as photographing someone out walking on the street, laying on the beach, etc. but they're still candid. I do prefer street shooting as opposed to going to a club and taking pics of girls on stage because it's more of a challenge. I consider sporting events to be candid as long as the subject doesn't pose for the photographer.

[archman]

Neo is right. This debate will never end.

Mate, that's a great definition you put up. I'm almost in full agreement with it, but I can see where others would argue certain points.

Originally Posted by Ambusher

Even when the aware subject is ignoring me, I think they are going to act slightly different then they otherwise would, even if its at a subconcious level.

This is what legendary Picky Pic Picker (aka Blonde Viking) calls "playing the game". Does "playing the game" make it less candid?

If you go to the Gemz section, there are a couple of shots from sporting events. There was (and is) a debate going on between the committee members regarding the candidness of these shots. One side of the fence says they're unposed, therefore candid. The other side says they're in a situation where they know cameras are around and expect to be photographed--ergo, they're not candid. According to the definition posted by Mate, these ARE NOT candid.

And what about those shots (and I'm very "guilty" of this) where they're not posing for you, but you "steal" or "hijack" the shot. Are these shots candid? They weren't posing for me, yet they were posing for somebody else. Again, according to Mate's posted definition, they're not candid--they have their game face on.

Intersting stuff, and nothing will be resolved in this post! If so, alert the authorities

[seemaya]

Originally Posted by Satan

Candid is anything unplanned.

At an event? so fricken what. Point your camera at a person in the event and they smile and do a curtsey, that's posed.

Sporting events ARE CANDIDS
Events ARE CANDIDS
Cheerleading events are candids

EXACTLY!!!!!...thanKs fer reading my mind man..ha!....culd na said it better or shorter!